UC-NRLF 


^B    STM    371 


■t'175't  i 
COLUMBi' 


IjNlVERSUr 

•Press- 


LIBRARY 

OF  THK 

University  of  California. 


GIF^T  OF" 


Class    *"^ 


y  Sllh. 


Columbia  ©ntbersitg 

STUDIES  INBOMANGE  PHILOLOGT  AND 
LITEMATUBE 


CORNEILLE  AND  RACINE 
IN  ENGLAND 


j2^^^ 


CORNEILLE  AND  RACINE 
IN  ENGLAND 


A  STUDY  OF  THE  ENGLISH  TRANSLATIONS    OF 
THE  TWO  CORNEILLES  AND  RACINE,  WITH 
ESPECIAL  REFERENCE  TO  THEIR  PRESEN- 
TATION ON  THE  ENGLISH  STAGE 


BY 
DOROTHEA  FRANCES    CANFIELD 


Submitted  in  partial  fulJUment  of  the  requirements 
for  the  Degree  of  Doctor  of  Philosophy  in  the  Faculty 
.  of  Philosophy,  Columbia  University. 


NEW   YORK 
1904 


\B  R  A  R  y 
^  or  THE 

UNIVERSITY    } 


COPTBIGHT,   1904, 

By  the  MACMILLAN  COMPANY. 


Set  up  and  electrotyped.    Published  September,  1904. 


'^- 


Norinaati  ^rees 

J.  S.  Cashing  &  Co.  — Berwick  &  Smith  Co. 

Norwood,  Mass.,  U.S.A. 


STo  ilHg  Parmte 


A.  ^C-  /  (/  <i>- 'it 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 

in  2008  with  funding  from 

IVIicrosoft  Corporation 


http://www.archive.org/details/corneilleracineiOOfishrich 


PEEFACE 

In  the  following  pages  an  attempt  is  made 
to  bring  to  light  a  forgotten  movement  in  the 
literary  history  of  our  own  language,  and  a 
forgotten  phase  of  the  renown  of  Racine  and 
Corneille.  It  is  comparatively  well  known 
that  even  during  the  Elizabethan  period  there 
were  translations  of  French  plays,  and  the  suc- 
cess of  Moliere  and  Voltaire  in  English  dress 
is  an  old  story.  But  most  Englishmen,  even 
those  who  know  and  admire  Racine  and  Cor- 
neille in  their  own  tongue,  would  deny  that 
they  ever  played  any  part  on  the  English  stage. 
Most  Frenchmen,  even  those  fully  aware  of  the 
importance  of  French  translations  in  German 
theatrical  literature,  would  be  surprised  to  learn 
that  there  was  a  time  when  plays  by  Racine 
and  Corneille  enjoyed  the  greatest  popularity 
in  London.  However,  such  are  the  facts.  The 
movement  (it  is  so  small  an  activity  that  it 
scarcely  deserves  the  name  of  school)  has  passed 
vii 


viii  PREFACE 

completely  out  of  sight ;  but  such  as  it  was,  it 
did  exist,  and  cannot  have  existed  without  exert- 
ing an  appreciable  influence.  This  study  of  the 
translations  of  Racine  and  the  two  Corneilles 
into  English  is,  however,  held  strictly  within 
the  limits  of  its  title.  The  influence  of  French 
drama  upon  the  English  stage  is  both  too  ex- 
tensive and  too  vague  a  matter  to  be  set  down 
in  a  chronological  and  historical  way,  and  too 
well  known  to  need  emphasizing;  but  the 
careful  collection  and  study  of  the  concrete 
examples  of  English  deference  to  French  taste 
in  this  one  certain  direction  has  not  been 
undertaken  before,  and  ought  to  be  worth  the 
doing  as  furnishing  a  reliable  basis  for  further 
generalization. 

The  translations  are  treated  chronologically, 
in  all  but  a  few  instances,  as  this  seems  the 
most  satisfactory  way  of  arranging  them.  The 
translations  of  Athalie  are  discussed  together, 
as  they  are  quite  separated  in  spirit  and  gen- 
eral result  from  the  others.  Comparatively 
little  space  is  given  to  them,  because  the  life 
of  the  great  French  tragedy  writers  on  the 
English  stage  is  the  real  subject  of  this  study, 
and  the  religious  dramas  were  never  regarded 
by  English  people  as  stage  possibilities.  The 
reason  for  this  is  quite  obvious  when  the  dif- 


PREFACE  ix 

ference  in  the  attitude  of  the  two  nations 
toward  religion  is  considered. 

The  collection  of  translations  has  been  car- 
ried down  to  the  end  of  the  first  quarter  of 
the  nineteenth  century  only,  as  after  that  time 
all  the  English  versions  were  merely  literary 
exercises.  The  motive  prompting  the  work 
had  completely  changed.  English  renderings 
of  foreign  masterpieces  may  be  said  to  be  sin- 
cere translations  only  when  the  motive  of  the 
translator  is  to  make  it  possible  for  the  gen- 
eral public,  reading  no  language  but  English, 
to  know  the  foreign  work  in  as  perfect  an 
English  reproduction  as  he  can  make.  When 
he  produces  his  work  with  no  such  idea,  but 
addresses  himself  to  a  small  circle  who  know 
both  languages  and  can  make  comparisons, 
meaning  to  exhibit  his  dexterity  in  manu- 
facturing English  verse  out  of  French,  he  is 
performing  a  literary  tour  de  force  only,  and 
his  production  has  nothing  in  common  with 
the  sincere  translation  which  forms  the  material 
studied  here. 

There  has  been  no  attempt  to  collect  and 
classify  small  and  unimportant  thefts  from  the 
French  which  abound  in  English  theatrical 
literature,  or  to  set  down  the  instances  where 
single  scenes  or  characters  are  taken  from  Ra- 


X  PREFACE 

cine  and  Corneille  and  used  in  an  English  set- 
ting. There  is  a  certain  interest  in  minute 
investigation  of  this  sort,  but  such  use  of  the 
French  was  always  underhanded  and  as  a  rule 
unrecognized.  For  a  study  which  attempts  to 
ascertain  the  real  life  of  these  three  French 
dramatists  in  England  such  fragmentary  and 
elusive  appearances  have  no  significance.  Con- 
sequently such  relations  as  that  existing  be- 
tween Mrs.  Centlivre's  Love  at  a  Venture  and 
Thomas  Corneille's  Le  G-alant  DoubU  have  not 
been  touched  upon.  The  treatment  of  Le  Men- 
teur  is,  in  portions,  an  exception  to  this  rule, 
admitted  partly  because  this  is  a  much  more 
important  comedy,  and  partly  to  make  complete 
the  story  of  its  long  life  in  England. 

Foot-notes  have  been  made  as  full  as  seemed 
necessary,  but  page  and  volume  references  to 
works  arranged  alphabetically  have  been  omit- 
ted unless  the  quotation  given  is  not  under  its 
natural  heading  in  the  work.  Accordingly, 
references  to  the  Dictionary  of  National  Biog- 
raphy^ Baker's  Biographica  Bramatica^  Jacob's 
Poetical  Register^  catalogues  in  general,  and 
similar  works,  are  given  without  stating  volume 
and  page.  The  editions  used  are  stated  in  the 
Bibliography. 

It  is  a  pleasure  as  well  as  a  duty  to  express 


PREFACE  3d 

here  my  thanks  for  the  courteous  treatment 
and  helpful  suggestions  of  the  officials  of  the 
British  Museum,  of  the  Yale  University  Library, 
and  of  the  Columbia  University  Library ;  also 
my  gratitude  to  Professor  Thomas  R.  Louns- 
bury  for  valuable  advice,  to  Professor  Adolphe 
Cohn  for  the  suggestion  of  my  theme  and  for 
sympathetic  criticism,  and  to  Professor  Henry 
A.  Todd  for  help  in  reading  proofs. 


CONTENTS 


I. 

11. 

m. 

IV. 

V. 

VI. 

VII. 

VIII. 

IX. 

X. 

XI. 

XII. 

XIII. 

XIV. 

XV. 

XVI. 

XVII. 

xvin. 


Butter's  Cid 

During  the  Commonwealtli 

The  Matchless  Orinda 

The  "  Persons  of  Honour  " 

Comedies    .... 

The  Last  of  the  Restoration 

An  Interregnum 

Le  Menteur 

Phcedra  and  Hippolitus 

The  Distressed  Mother 

CoUey  Gibber      . 

John  Ozell  .... 

Iphigenie      .... 

Miscellaneous  Translations 

The  Roman  Father 

Esther  and  Athalie 

The  Last  of  the  Movement 

Summary    .... 


PAOS 

1 

19 

28 

51 

70 

80 

102 

115 

129 

140 

167 

186 

198 

212 

229 

249 

256 

275 


zui 


I.    RUTTER'S   CID 

The  Restoration  marks  the  real  beginning  of 
the  life  of  the  two  great  French  dramatists  ^  in 
English  literature  and  on  the  English  stage. 
However,  there  is  a  curious  and  little-known 
incident  of  theatrical  history  during  the  reign 
of  Charles  I.  which  shows  that  the  interest  in 
French  plays,  which  is  so  prominent  a  feature 
of  his  son's  time,  was  a  development  sudden 
only  in  appearance.  In  reality,  the  close  rela- 
tions existing  between  the  French  and  English 
courts  during  the  reign  of  Charles  I.  was  al- 
ready preparing  the  way  for  the  invasion  of  the 
English  stage  by  the  numberless  translations 
and  imitations  from  the  French  which  fill  the 
literary  annals  of  the  Restoration. 

The  French  queen  of  Charles  I.  was  un- 
doubtedly responsible  for  a  great  deal  of  the 
interest  felt  in  French  plays  at  this  time.     As 

1  Unless  Thomas  Comeille  is  specifically  mentioned  refer- 
ence is  always  to  Pierre  Corneille. 

B  1 


2        CORNEILLE  AND  EACINE  IN  ENGLAND 

early  as  1629  there  are  records  of  a  corapany  of 
French  actors  performing  in  turn  at  three  of 
the  London  theatres.  The  plays  were  pre- 
sented in  the  original,  and  their  production 
in  London  may  be  almost  surely  connected 
with  the  Queen's  French  sympathies.  Her- 
bert's Licenses  of  Acting  Plays  has  this  notice, 
on  the  17th  of  February,  1635:  "French  com- 
pany being  approved  of  by  the  Queen  at 
her  house  two  nights  before  and  commended 
by  her  majesty  to  the  King,  acted  Melise,  a 
French  comedy.  .  .  .  "  ^  This  reference  to  the 
Queen's  interest  in  the  theatre,  and  to  her 
influence  with  the  King,  is  noteworthy.  The 
violent  punishment  of  Prynne  shows  that  the 
Queen's  taste  for  the  theatre  was  a  fact  to  be 
reckoned  with  in  the  society  of  that  time.  It 
will  be  remembered  that  he  wrote  a  virulent 
diatribe  against  playhouses  and  players  as  di- 
rect agents  of  the  devil.  One  of  the  charges 
made  against  him  was  slandering  the  Queen. 
The  objectionable  passage  in  his  book  was  one 
abusing  all  women  actors  or  singers,  in  spite  of 
the  well-known  fact  that  the  Queen  was  fond 

1  Fleay's  Chronicle  History  of  London  Stage,  Chap.  6, 
Sect.  D.  S.  339. 


BUTTER'S  CID  3 

of  taking  part  in  Court  Masques.  Prynne  was 
deprived  of  his  University  degree,  set  in  the 
pillory,  and  imprisoned. ^ 

The  most  significant  fact  in  connection  with 
this  lively  interest  of  the  Queen  in  the  theatre 
in  general,  and  in  French  plays  in  particular, 
is  the  date  of  the  first  translation  of  the  Cid^ 
which  is  also  the  first  translation  from  Corneille 
into  English. 2 

It  is  a  well-authenticated  fact  that  this  trans- 
lation of  the  Cid  was  undertaken  at  the  com- 
mand of  the  Earl  of  Dorset,  Lord  Chamberlain 
to  the  Queen. 

This  Earl  of  Dorset  was  a  thorough  French 
scholar,  as  may  be  learned  from  the  dedication 
of  this  early  translation  of  the  Cid^  and  also 
from  the  fact  that  he  was  twice  ambassador 
to  the  court  of  Louis  XIII.  There  was 
among  his  dependents  one  Joseph  Rutter,  who 
was  tutor  to  his  son.  To  this  presumably 
learned  man,  though,  as  the  translation  shows, 

1  Green's  History  of  the  English  People^  p.  528.  Harper 
and  Brothers,  New  York,  1888. 

2  The  Melise  spoken  of  might  be  identified  with  Cor- 
neille's  Melite,  were  it  not  that,  in  1633,  a  Pastorale  Comique 
called  La  Melize  was  produced  in  Paris.  Mulert  conjectures 
with  much  probability  that  this  was  the  one  given  in  England, 


4    CORNEILLE  AND  RACINE  IN  ENGLAND 

lacking  in  poetic  talent,  the  translation  of 
the  Cid  was  intrusted.  Of  this  translation, 
Baker,  in  the  Biographica  Bramatica^  says: 
"When  executed  it  was  so  well  approved  by  the 
King,  to  whom  it  was  shown,  that  at  his  Majesty's 
own  desire  the  second  part  of  the  same  piece  was 
put  into  Mr.  Rutter's  hands  with  an  injunction 
to  translate  it,  which  he  immediately  obeyed."  ^ 
One  might  not  see  in  this  anything  noteworthy 
beyond  a  further  proof  of  the  interest  of  the 
English  Court  in  French  tragedy  were  it  not 
for  the  date  of  the  translation,  which  is  given 
clearly  in  the  British  Museum  copies  as  Janu- 
ary 26,  1637  (O.S.).  Now  the  date  of  the 
French  privilege  is  given  as  the  21  Janvier^ 
1637  (N.S.),2  while  the  play  was  not  actually 
printed  until  March  23,  1637  (N.S.).  These 
dates  establish  the  curious  and  significant  fact 
that  Corneille's  epoch-making  play  was  printed 
in  English  as  soon  as  in  French. 

It  has  never  been  possible  to  determine  the 
exact  date  of  the  first  representation  of  Le  Cid 

1  This  "  Second  part  of  the  Cid  "  is  a  translation  of  La 
vraie  Suite  du  Cid,  de  Vabbe  Desfontaines,  1637.  The  Eng- 
lish translation  was  published  in  1640,  and  as  late  as  1699 
is  still  cited  by  Langbaine  as  a  translation  from  Corneille. 

2  Picot,  Bibliographie  Cornelienne,  p.  12. 


RUTTER'S  CID  6 

in  Paris.  It  is  quite  as  impossible  to  ascertain 
when  the  English  translation  was  first  acted,  but 
it  must  have  been  presented  before  it  was 
printed,  as  the  title-page  reads,  "The  Cid  a 
Tragicomedy,  out  of  French  made  English: 
and  acted  before  their  Majesties  at  Court  and 
on  the  Cockpitt  Stage  in  Drury-lane,  by  the 
servants  to  both  their  Majesties." 

This  early  date  of  the  English  production 
makes  a  different  matter  of  the  whole  affair. 
For  it  almost  certainly  presupposes  the  fact  that 
the  Earl  of  Dorset  obtained  a  manuscript  copy 
of  the  Oid  while  the  play  was  still  the  very  lat- 
est novelty  and  sensation  in  Paris.  This  in  its 
turn  indicates  on  his  part  an  attention  to  theat- 
rical affairs  in  Paris  far  keener  than  would  be 
shown  by  the  simple  translation  of  a  printed 
book  that  might  be  easily  obtained  in  London 
from  any  returned  traveller.  With  all  the 
immense  advance  in  means  of  communication 
between  France  and  England,  it  would  have 
been  surprising  if  Cyrano  de  Bergerac  had  been 
translated  and  played  in  London  before  it  was 
printed  in  Paris. 

In  regard  to  the  partiality  of  the  Queen  for 
French  dramatic  literature,  it  must  be  remem- 


6        CORNEILLE  AND  EAOINE  IN  ENGLAND 

bered  that  at  this  time  the  English  stage  was 
not  in  a  condition  to  arouse  any  enthusiasm  in 
even  the  most  broad-minded  of  French  women. 
Shakespeare  was  gone.  Ben  Jonson's  pedantic 
severity,  the  horrors  of  the  tragedy  of  that  time 
and  the  grossness  of  the  comedy,  were  not  at- 
tractive qualities  to  one  fresh  from  Paris.  It 
can  well  be  imagined  that  the  Earl  of  Dorset 
was  heartily  thanked  for  his  prompt  transfer- 
ence of  the  French  masterpiece  to  London,  and 
that  the  worthy  Joseph  Rutter  went  back  to 
his  translation  of  the  "  Second  part  of  the  Oid  " 
with  a  heart  warmed  by  the  praises  of  his 
patron.  It  must  also  have  been  a  delight  to 
him  (if  he  was  aware  of  it)  that  Corneille 
himself  secured  a  copy  of  his  work  and  val- 
ued it  highly.  Jusserand  says,  "  II  (Corneille) 
possedait  toutefois  une  traduction  anglaise  du 
Cid,  et  s'en  faisait  gloire  :  c'etait  une  grande 
curiosite."^ 

As  this  is  the  first  translation  from  Corneille 
made  into  English  and  as  it  kept  its  place  on 
the  stage  for  many  years,  and  later,  almost  a 
century  later,  had  the  honor  to  be  pirated  under 
the  name  of  another  author,  it  is  worth  while  to 

1  Jusserand,  Shakespeare  en  France^  p.  91. 


BUTTER'S  CID  7 

examine  it.  In  view  of  the  circumstances  sur- 
rounding the  inception  of  the  translation,  the 
dedication  and  the  preface  are  interesting. 
The  former  is  written  in  the  usual  flattering 
style  of  the  time.  The  following  passage  is 
evidently  a  reference  to  the  fact  that  the  author 
wrote  for  the  King  and  Queen.  "To  give  your 
Lordship  a  testimony  of  my  readiness  to  obey 
you,  I  no  sooner  was  commanded  by  you  to 
translate  this  Poem  than  I  went  about  it,  and 
certainly  your  commands  gave  life  to  the  work 
which  else  despaire  of  performance  or  the  con- 
sideration to  whom  it  must  be  presented  would 
have  stifled  in  its  first  birth."  He  gives  an  idea 
of  the  difficulty  he  found  in  accomplishing  his 
task,  thus  —  "  For  how  could  I  hope  anything 
from  mine  owne  suficiencie  being  little  exercised 
in  the  French  tongue  and  finding  such  a  contu- 
macy in  their  phrase  to  our  manner  of  speak- 
ing." Here  Joseph  Rutter  speaks  once  for  all 
the  feeling  of  the  long  line  of  translators  of 
Corneille  of  which  he  is  the  first.  This  "  con- 
tumacy "  of  the  French  tongue  is  very  evident 
to  a  reader  of  his  translation,  though  it  does  not 
seem  to  have  diminished  the  admiration  of  his 
contemporaries  for  his  work. 


8         CORNEILLE  AND  RACINE  IN  ENGLAND 

In  his  "Preface  to  the  Reader"  he  speaks 
again  of  the  difficulties  he  has  encountered,  "  I 
have  followed  close  both  the  sense  and  the  words 
of  the  Author,  but  many  things  are  received  wit 
in  one  tongue  which  are  not  in  another."  One's 
heart  warms  to  the  pedagogue  when,  later  on, 
he  speaks  with  so  much  appreciation  of  the  good 
qualities  of  the  original.  "  The  Playe  it  selfe 
...  I  would  willingly  propose  to  be  imitated 
of  our  undertakers  in  the  like  kinds,  I  meane 
for  the  conveyance  and  (as  I  may  call  it)  the 
Oeconomy  of  it :  for  what  concerns  the  wit  and 
natural  expressions  in  it  I  know  I  speak  to 
deafe  people  whose  ears  have  been  furr'd  with 
so  many  hyperboles  which  is  the  wit  in  fashion 
though  the  same  in  Seneca's  days  were  accounted 
madness.  But  if  they  knew  how  dissenting 
with  a  right  eare  any  affected  speech  is,  they 
would  rather  trespasse  the  other  way  and  not 
straine  nature  beyond  what  we  find  it  commonly 
is." 

Although  his  English  is  somewhat  confusing 
here,  this  comment  on  the  literary  fashion  of 
his  day  and  on  the  merits  of  the  Cid  shows  a 
sound  taste  in  Rutter  which  cannot  have  been 
common  among  the  men  of  letters  of  that  day. 


RUTTER'S   CID  9 

In  one  direction  at  least  it  also  promises  well 
for  his  translation,  namely,  that  he  will  not 
attempt,  as  have  so  many  later  translators,  to 
enliven  the  monotony  of  the  French  stage  (as 
they  put  it)  by  introducing  exaggerated  bom- 
bast in  the  English  style. 

That  Rutter  was  not  merely  the  conscientious 
scholar  one  is  likely  to  think  him,  is  shown  by 
his  conclusion  to  the  preface.  He  stops  short 
in  his  criticism  of  the  lack  of  taste  shown 
by  his  countrymen,  and  takes  himself  to  task  : 
"  But  this  is  no  fit  Porch  for  the  Temple 
of  Love.  I'le  shut  it  up  and  open  for  you 
the  pleasant  way  into  which  you  had  rather 
enter." 

One  is  prepared  for  a  most  favorable  view  of 
his  translation,  knowing  that  Rutter  was  a 
serious  man  of  learning  and  reading  this 
agreeably  modest  preface ;  but  an  impartial 
examination  shows  it  to  be  a  mediocre  per- 
formance, with  flashes  of  excellence.  It  has 
negative  virtues,  which  recur  to  the  mind  in 
reading  some  of  the  absurdly  inelegant  trans- 
lations of  later  days ;  but  the  positive  literary 
merit  is  slight. 

An   example  of   one  of  the  best  passages  is 


10       CORNEILLE  AND  RACINE  IN  ENGLAND 

the  following  translation  of  the  famous  scene 
of  the  blow  (Act  I.  Scene  3)  : 

Count.   Take  that,  rash  Dotard  for  thy  impudence  I 
Don  Diego.   Nay,  make  it  up  and  after  this  affront 

Take  my  life  too. 

Count.   What  dost  thou  hope  to  do,  thou  feeble  f oole  ? 

Thy  sword  is  mine  and  yet  I  scorn  to  take  it. 

Goe  now  and  bid  the  Prince  read  o're  thy  life 

And  let  him  not  omit  this  part  of  it 

In  which  hee'le  finde  the  just  revenge  I  take 

Of  this  thy  insolence  a  faire  example.^ 

It  will  be  seen  in  this  passage  that  Rutter 
does  not  attempt  a  word-for-word,  nor  even 
a  line-for-line,  translation.  Any  such  feat  of 
linguistic  agility  would  have  been  far  beyond 
his  powers.  When  he  cannot  crowd  into  one 
line  all  that  Corneille  has  in  one,  he  leaves  out 

1  Le  Comte.  Ton  impudence 

Tfim^raire  vieillard,  aura  sa  recompense. 

D.  Diegue.   Achfeve,  et  prends  ma  vie  apres  un  tel  affront, 

Le  premier  dont  ma  race  ait  vu  rougir  son  front. 
Le  Comte.   Et  que  penses-tu  faire  avec  tant  de  f aiblesse  ? 
D.  Diegue.   O  Dieu  !  ma  force  us6e  en  ce  besoin  me  laisse  I 
Le  Comte.   Ton  ^pfie  est  a  moi ;  mais  tu  serais  trop  vain, 

Si  ce  honteux  troph^e  avait  charge  ma  main. 

Adieu  :  fais  lire  au  Prince,  en  d^pit  de  I'envie 

Pour  son  instruction  I'histoire  de  ta  vie  ; 

D'un  insolent  discours  ce  juste  chatiment 

Ne  lui  servira  pas  de  petit  ornement. 


BUTTER'S  CID  11 

the  rest  or  trails  it  into  the  following  line. 
But  it  is  also  evident  that  he  has  thoroughly- 
understood  his  original,  and  that  with  a  fair 
degree  of  success  in  happy  passages  like  the 
one  quoted,  he  has  been  able  to  reproduce  the 
spirit  and  fire  of  Corneille. 

But  given  the  problem  of  reproducing  the 
intricate  rhythm  and  rhyme  and  the  rhetorical 
power  of  a  passage  like  the  celebrated  mono- 
logue of  the  hero  at  the  end  of  the  first  act,  poor 
Rutter's  moderate  talents  fail  utterly.  As  an 
example  of  his  worst  style,  the  following 
limping  prosaic  blank  verse  stands  as  a  pitiable 
contrast  to  the  polish  and  strength  of  the 
original : 

Strooke  to  the  very  heart,  with  a  blow  as  f  atall 
As  unforeseen  :  what  shall  I  doe  ?    I  must 
Revenge  my  father  and  provoke  my  mistress. 

If  I  revenge  my  father  I  must  lose 
My  love  :  if  not  I  must  live  infamous. 
How  can  I  live,  having  lost  all  I  live  for  ? 

It  were  unnecessary  cruelty  to  point  out  all 
the  blemishes  in  this  example  of  what  Rutter 
could  do  when  he  was  at  his  worst. 

Another  fault  of  Rutter's  is  poetic  short- 
ness of  breath.    Many  a  passage  starts  out  well, 


12       CORNEILLE  AND  EACINE   IN  ENGLAND 

but  ends  in  a  gasp  with  a  line  outrageously 
false.  This  is  especially  noticeable  where  Cor- 
neille's  rhetoric  begins  to  soar,  which  is,  of 
course,  a  frequent  occurrence.  In  continued 
narrative  or  in  calm  speeches  like  those  of  the 
King  or  Elvire,  this  translator  is  safer,  but  in 
a  burst  like  the  following  how  his  powers  fail 
him  !     (Act  II.  Scene  8.) 

Chimena.  My  father's  slaine,  Sir  and  these  eyes  have 
seene 
His  bloud  gush  out  in  bubles  :  that  dear  bloud 
Which  has  so  oft  preserved  your  wals,  so  oft 
Been  fir'd  to  gaine  you  battailes  and  which  yet 
Reakes  with  just  anger  to  have  been  spilt  for  any 
But  you,  the  King.^ 

This  was  the  translation  received  with  such 
pleasure  by  the  King  and  Court.  There  is 
no  doubt  about  its  success  on  the  stage.  As 
shown  in  the  title-page  it  was  played  at  Court 

1  Sire,  mon  pere  est  mort :  mes  yeux  ont  vu  son  sang 
Couler  h.  gros  bouillons  de  son  gSn^reux  flanc ; 
Ce  sang  qui  tant  de  fois  garantit  vos  inurailles, 
Ce  sang  qui  tant  de  fois  vous  gagna  des  batailles, 
Ce  sang  qui  tout  sorti  fume  encore  de  courroux 
De  se  voir  r^pandu  pour  d'autres  que  pour  vous. 

It  will  be  noticed  that  this  is  a  very  faithful  translation, 
and  more  nearly  a  line-f  or-line  rendering  than  Rutter  is  usu- 
ally able  to  accomplish. 


BUTTER'S  CID  13 

and  at  the  Cockpit,  and  its  popularity  is  attested 
by  the  fact  that  in  1650,  eight  years  after  the 
theatres  were  closed  by  act  of  Parliament,  there 
was  demand  enough  for  it  to  warrant  the  ap- 
pearance of  a  second  edition.  It  is  true  that 
Langbaine,^  from  the  lofty  eminence  of  fifty 
years  more  of  dramatic  progress,  says  of  it 
with  condescension  in  1691,  "  To  speak  of  the 
translation  in  general,  I  think  if  the  time  be 
considered  when  it  was  undertaken,  it  may  pass 
muster  with  candid  readers."  But  we  have 
evidence  that  in  spite  of  this  judgment  Rut- 
ter's  translation  held  the  stage  as  late  as  1662  ; 
for  Pepys  notes  under  date  of  December  1, 
1662,  twenty-six  years  after  the  first  appearance 
of  the  play,  "I  saw  The  Valiant  Qid  acted,  a 
play  which  I  have  read  with  great  delight,  but 
it  is  a  most  dull  thing  acted  which  I  never 
understood  before  :  there  being  no  pleasure  in 
it  though  done  by  Betterton  and  by  Yanthe 
and  another  fine  wench."  As  a  literary  critic 
Pepys  is  not  very  reliable,  and  his  censure 
probably  need  have  little  weight.  But  the 
information  he  gives  is  highly  interesting. 
He   had   read   the   play  many  times,  and   had 

1  Account  of  English  Dramatic  Poets,  p.  431. 


14       COKNEILLE  AND  RACINE  IN  ENGLAND 

evidently  heard  but  not  understood  criticisms 
of  it  as  a  play  for  the  stage.  Betterton,  the 
greatest  actor  of  his  period,  chose  it  as  one  of 
his  roles,  and  it  was  given  to  an  audience  made 
up  of  the  highest  in  English  society  of  the  time, 
as  is  shown  by  some  gossip  Pepys  retails 
on  the  same  date.  Rutter's  blank  verse  must 
have  been  very  much  out  of  fashion  at  that 
time,  which  makes  the  production  of  his  play  all 
the  more  a  proof  of  the  enduring  admiration 
which  his  work  had  secured,  and  of  the  fact 
that  he  had  not  been  lost  to  sight  even  during 
the  Commonwealth,  so  dreary  a  time  to  play- 
wrights and  actors. 

The  distressing  circumstances  of  the  Civil 
Wars  put  an  end  to  most  literary  activity  and 
especially  to  writing  for  the  stage.  The  play- 
houses were  closed,  the  actors  went  into  the 
King's  army,  and  the  playwrights  were  absorbed 
in  one  way  and  another  in  the  struggles  of  the 
times.  Sir  John  Denham,  in  the  dedication  of 
a  volume  of  verse  and  translations  to  Charles 
II.,  says  of  this  period,  and  of  his  own  rea- 
sons for  not  having  written  during  the  Civil 
Wars,  "That  time  was  too  hot  and  busie  for 
such  idle  Speculations,  but  after  I  had  the  good 


BUTTER'S  CID  16 

fortune  to  wait  upon  your  Majesty  in  Holland 
and  France  you  were  pleased  sometimes  to  give 
me  Arguments  to  put  off  and  divert  the  evil 
hour  of  our  Banishment,  which  now  and  then 
fell  not  short  of  your  Majesty's  Expectation." 
This  passage  may  be  said  to  sum  up  the  influ- 
ence of  the  exile  of  the  Royalists  upon  the  sub- 
ject of  translations  from  Corneille  and  Racine. 
Although  at  first  glance  the  period  of  Puri- 
tan rule  in  England  might  be  thought  the  last 
epoch  likely  to  encourage  French  influence,  in 
reality  it  probably  contributed  much  to  it.  In 
the  first  place,  there  was  the  reaction  that  was 
bound  to  come  after  the  severity  and  narrow- 
ness of  Puritan  ways  of  thought.  Then,  the 
people  of  rank  and  culture,  very  many  of  them, 
were  living  in  exile  in  France,  Holland  or 
Flanders.  Those  who  were  still  in  England 
had  retired  to  their  country  houses,  refused  to 
take  any  part  in  public  life,  and  turned  their 
eyes  toward  France  as  the  dwelling-place  of 
many  of  their  friends  and  as  the  possible 
source  of  aid  for  their  party.  Even  during 
the  Civil  War  gentlemen  of  leisure  were  mak- 
ing the  grand  tour  as  slowly  as  possible,  to  keep 
out   of  the   uncomfortable   quarrels   at  home. 


16       CORNEILLE  AND   RACINE  IN  ENGLAND 

John  Evelyn  and  the  poet  Waller,  with  a  party 
of  Englishmen,  travelled  together  for  some  time. 
Waller  indeed  had  barely  escaped  from  the 
Puritans  with  his  life.  He  finally  returned  to 
Paris  and  kept  open  house  in  so  brilliant  a 
manner  that  he  soon  drew  about  him  the  most 
distinguished  men  and  women  of  that  capital. 
The  publisher  of  the  Duke  of  Buckingham's 
Rehearsal  says  in  his  remarks  to  the  reader, 
giving  it  as  one  of  the  literary  advantages  of 
the  Duke,  "  By  travel  he  had  the  opportunity  of 
observing  the  Decorum  of  foreign  Theatres  ; 
especially  the  French  under  the  regulation  of 
Monsieur  Corneille."  The  young  Prince  was 
half  French  by  birth,  and  certainly  not  inclined 
by  circumstances  to  have  any  great  fondness 
for  the  English.  Children  who  were  too  young 
when  their  parents  left  England  to  have  been 
under  the  influence  of  English  taste  were  grow- 
ing up  in  French  schools  and  in  French  sur- 
roundings. The  French  stage  was  in  a  position 
of  undisputed  authority  and  in  all  the  freshness 
of  the  first  glow  of  its  golden  period.  Cor- 
neille stood  unapproached  by  any  rival,  and  of 
all  French  tragic  poets  he  is  the  one  most 
calculated  to  inspire  admiration  in  the  English 


BUTTER'S  CID  17 

mind.  His  greatest  plays  were  all  written  at 
that  time,  and  his  force  and  power  and  lofty 
dignity  were  eminently  calculated  to  prevent 
British  minds  from  dwelling  on  the  un-English 
details  of  rhymed  Alexandrines  and  the  observ- 
ance of  the  unities. 

His  spirit  and  fire  and  heroic  strength  are 
qualities  much  more  sympathetic  to  English 
minds  and  much  more  likely  to  excuse  the  limi- 
tations of  French  tragedy  than  Racine's  melt- 
ing passion,  which  seems  sentimental  gallantry 
to  the  beef-eating  type  of  Englishman,  or  his 
constant  elevation  of  thought  and  perfection  of 
style,  which  are  monotonous  and  tiresome  to 
most  British  taste. ^  There  is  much  in  Cor- 
neille  to  appeal  to  even  conventional  English 
minds  and  little  to  repel  them.  To  the  Galli- 
cized courtiers  of  Charles  II.  he  must  have 
seemed  as  great  a  man  as  to  the  followers  of 
Louis  XIV.  The  only  notable  translation 
from  Corneille  made  during  the  Restoration, 
after  the  appearance  of  Andromaque  in  Paris, 
was  Charles  Cotton's  Horace,  which  appeared 

1  Only  La  Thebaide  and  Andromaque  had  been  published 
before  the  height  of  the  translation  period  in  England  was 


18       CORNEILLE   AND   RACINE   IN  ENGLAND 

in  1671.  The  important  part  of  the  work  of 
Mrs.  Philips,  Waller,  and  Denham  was  pub- 
lished before  Racine's  name  was  known,  so  that 
the  development  of  classic  tragedy  most  com- 
pletely French  was  unknown  to  the  English 
admirers  of  that  form  of  composition.  This 
fact  must  be  taken  into  account  in  explaining 
the  enthusiasm  for  it  which  existed  at  that  time. 

The  French  Court  possessed  in  its  stability, 
prosperity,  and  clearly  defined  position  all  that 
the  scattered,  impecunious  Cavaliers  wished  for 
their  King,  and  they  came  to  regard  it  as  an 
ideal  in  all  respects.  The  great  writers  who 
were  its  lights  were  looked  upon  as  models. 

The  general  condition,  then,  was  that  during 
the  Commonwealth  the  Cavaliers  at  home  had 
more  leisure  than  usual  to  spend  on  such  "  idle 
Speculations,"  as  Sir  John  Denham  put  it,  and 
the  Royalists  abroad  found  themselves  in  an 
atmosphere  of  keen  and  intelligent  interest  in 
literary  and  dramatic  affairs.^  All  this  was  pre- 
paring the  ground  for  translations  from  the  two 
greatest  French  dramatists. 

1  It  is  of  interest  in  this  connection  to  notice  that  Dutch 
translations  of  Corneille  —  especially  of  the  Cid  —  enjoyed 
a  considerable  popularity  in  Holland  at  this  time. 


II.     DURING  THE  COMMONWEALTH 

Not  only  did  these  conditions  prepare  the 
way  for  the  translations  of  the  Restoration,  but 
they  created  a  feeling  so  strong  that  even  in 
those  troublous  times  there  were  found  admirers 
of  French  taste  enthusiastic  enough  to  under- 
take the  work  without  waiting  for  more  peace- 
ful days. 

The  first  attempt  was  made  in  1654,  at  the 
height  of  Puritan  fanaticism.  There  appeared 
that  year  a  little  book  with  the  following  title, 
"  The  Extravagant  SheepJierd  —  A  Pastorall 
Comedie  Written  in  French  hy  T,  Corneille 
Englished  hy  T.  i2."  This  T.  R.  is  as  com- 
pletely hidden  behind  his  initials  now  as  ever. 
Fleayi  has  no  conjecture,  and  Baker  (^Bio- 
graphica  Dramatical  says,  "  There  is  no  author 
who  wrote  about  that  time  whose  name  would 
suit  these  initials  excepting  Thomas  Rawlins. ^ 

^  Chronicle  History  of  the  London  Stage. 
2  This  Thomas  Rawlins  was  principal  engraver  to  the  mint 
in  the  reign  of  both  Charles  I.  and  II.     He  was  a  friend  of 
19 


20       CORNEILLE  AND  RACINE  IN  ENGLAND 

Yet  without  further  concomitant  circumstances 
I  cannot  think  myself  authorized  to  father  this 
play  upon  him." 

There  is  a  very  quaintly  worded  dedication 
to  "  The  most  virtuous  Lady  Mrs.  Joanna 
Thornhill"  in  which  he  begs  her  protection 
for  this  "Innocent  Stranger,  who  durst  not 
venture  abroad  without  it.  Such  is  his  Inno- 
cency  that  in  this  habit  he  might  without  Gaule 
to  the  Spectator  have  entered  the  Theatre  (had 
not  the  Guilty  Ones  of  this  Age  broken  that 
Mirror  lest  they  should  there  behold  their  own 
horrible  shapes  represented)." 

The  Halliwell-Phillipps  Dictionary  ^  says  of 
this  dedication,  "  In  it  the  author  appears  to 
intimate  that  the  comedy  had  been  unsuccess- 
fully performed  in  its  English  dress."  The 
passage  above  quoted  is  the  only  one  which 
speaks  of  anything  but  the  virtues  of  Mrs. 
Thornhill,  and  it  would  be  hard  to  deduce  from 
this  anything  but  indignation  at  the  Puritan 

the  literary  men  of  his  day,  and  it  seems  from  all  the  facts 
of  the  case  that  it  is  not  improbable  that  he  did  indeed  bring 
Thomas  Corneille  into  English.  But  the  cautious  Baker  is 
undoubtedly  right  in  saying  that  it  is  unsafe  to  attempt  to 
pierce  the  veil  of  anonymity  which  still  covers  T.  R. 
1  Dictionary  of  Old  English  Plays. 


DURING  THE   COMMONWEALTH  21 

restrictions  on  the  stage.  It  is  true  that  there 
were  performances  given  even  during  the 
period  of  Puritan  rule,  but  these  were  done  in 
the  greatest  privacy  and  away  from  London. 
Sir  William  D'Avenant's  cautious  opening  at 
Rutland  House  with  declamation  and  music  did 
not  come  until  1656,  two  years  later  than  the 
date  of  the  Extravagant  SheepJierd^  and  even 
he  did  not  venture  to  give  plays  complete  until 
1658.  So  that  it  seems  very  likely  that  T.  R.'s 
Pastorall  Oomedie  was  printed  before  it  was 
ever  acted. 

The  work  itself  is  a  very  interesting  attempt. 
The  honesty  of  the  translator  in  giving  so 
clearly  his  original  is  in  pleasing  contrast  to  the 
lack  of  candor  —  to  call  it  by  no  harsher  name 
—  of  his  immediate  successor  in  translation. 
T.  R.  has  produced  as  exact  an  "  Englishing," 
to  use  his  own  term,  as  his  capacity  allowed. 
The  Dramatis  Personse  are  exactly  the  same, 
and,  what  is  a  little  unusual,  they  are  given  in 
the  order  of  the  original.  Nothing  is  put  in, 
nothing  is  left  out,  and  even  the  stage  directions 
are  literally  translated.  The  actual  merit  of 
the  work  is  slight,  but  the  verses  are  not  dis- 
agreeable.    The  soliloquy  of  Lycis  in  the  first 


22       CORNEILLE   AND  RACINE  IN  ENGLAND 

scene  is  done  in  rhyme,  but  this  seems  to  have 
exhausted  all  the  author's  facility  in  this  direc- 
tion ;  for  the  rest  is  in  blank  verse,  of  which  a 
fair  sample  of  the  best  is  the  following  passage 
(Act  IV.  Scene  3): 

Charita.   And  why  should  love  in  this  our  age  in  us 
Be  weakness  and  a  virtue  in  the  men  ? 
Why  should  we  blush  at  our  so  faultless  flames  ? 
Do  we  want  eyes  to  see  or  hearts  to  love  ? 

This  is  not  bad  for  second-rate  versification, 
and  is  infinitely  better  than  the  work  of  the 
author  next  in  chronological  order,  —  Sir  Will- 
iam Lower,  who  wrote  two  translations  of  this 
period. 

Lower  was  a  Cornishman  by  birth  and  a  cousin 
of  the  well-known  physiologist.  Dr.  Lower.  He 
went  to  Oxford  for  a  time,  but  showing  no  de- 
sire for  serious  study  he  travelled  abroad,  espe- 
cially in  France.  The  Dictionary  of  National 
Biography  says  that  he  had  the  reputation  of 
being  a  perfect  master  of  the  French  tongue, 
—  a  reputation  which  a  reader  of  his  transla- 
tions will  certainly  consider  unfounded.  After 
his  return  to  England  he  became  so  deeply  in- 
volved in  the  Civil  Wars  (he  was  an  ardent 
Royalist)  that  he  was  compelled  again  to  visit 


DURING  THE  COMMONWEALTH  23 

the  continent  where,  as  Baker  (^Biographica 
Bramatica)  puts  it,  "being  strongly  attached 
to  the  Muses,  he  had  an  opportunity  of  enjoying 
their  society  and  pursuing  his  studies."  His 
cousin,  Dr.  Lower,  made  a  remark  about  him 
that  seems  to  satisfy  the  feelings  of  the  reader 
of  his  translations  more  than  either  of  the  above- 
quoted  authorities.  Some  one  asked  him  his 
opinion  of  his  literary  cousin.  "  Sir,"  said  the 
doctor,  "he  is  an  ill  poet  and  a  worse  man." 
If  he  was  a  worse  man  than  his  translations  of 
Horace  and  Polyeuctes  show  him  to  have  been 
a  poet,  the  Puritans  certainly  lost  nothing  by 
his  being  of  the   opposite  party. 

Nowhere  in  either  of  these  two  plays  does  he 
give  any  credit  to  Corneille.  The  title-page  of 
the  first  reads,  Polyeuctes^  Or  the  Martyr^  a 
Tragedy  hy  Sir  William  Lower ^  1655 ;  and  the 
second,  IToratius,  A  Roman  Tragedy  hy  Sir 
William  Lower ^  1656 ;  which  method  of  an- 
nouncing a  translation  is  certainly  lacking  in 
frankness.  There  might  seem  to  be  a  possi- 
bility that  he  thought,  in  the  case  of  two  such 
well-known  plays  as  these,  that  it  was  not  neces- 
sary to  give  the  author's  name,  sure  to  be  known 
without  explicit  statement.    But  this  charitable 


24       CORNEILLE   AND   RACINE   IN  ENGLAND 

judgment  is  proved  impossible  by  the  way  his 
work  was  received  by  critics  and  theatrical 
historians.  Langbaine  in  two  of  his  works,i  the 
Biographiea  Bramatica?  and  even  an  authority 
as  late  as  Genest^  give  Polyeuctes  as  an  orig- 
inal work  of  Lower's.  This  is  singular,  as  a 
more  literal  translation  could  scarcely  be  im- 
agined.    It  is  quite  baldly  faithful. 

It  is  not  necessary  to  examine  both  of 
these  plays,  as  they  are  exactly  similar  in  lack 
of  merit.  Horatius  may  be  chosen  as  a  little 
the  worse ;  and  this  is  an  inducement  to  look 
at  it,  for  at  his  worst  Lower  is  so  bad  as  to  be 
highly  entertaining.  The  printing  is  even 
more  careless  than  is  usual  in  books  of  that 
time,  and  the  spelling  more  erratic.  The  lines 
do  not  begin  with  capital  letters,  which  detail 
gives  a  singular  air  of  illiteracy  to  the  pages. 
This  feature  is  really  in  keeping  with  the 
nature  of  the  work,  however,  as  the  lines  seem 
in  many  cases  to  be  nothing  but  prose  cut  up 
into  uncertain  lengths.  He  is  said  to  have 
become  a  perfect  master  of  the  French  tongue. 
This   may  not  be   contradicted  with   absolute 

1  Account,  1691,  and  Lives,  1699.  2  Baker,  1764. 

8  Some  Account^  Vol.  X.  p.  68. 


DURING  THE   COMMONWEALTH  25 

certainty,  as  we  possess  nothing  of  his  written 
in  French  ;  but  he  is  no  master  of  his  own 
tongue,  as  may  be  seen  from  translations  like 
the  following.  He  translates  milee^  referring 
to  a  battle,  as  mixture^  which  is  quite  deliciously 
absurd,  and  he  understands /ai6?g88es  d'un  grand 
cceur  to  mean  imbecility.     (Act  IV.  Scene  2.) 

Horace.    When  can  I  smother  in  my  close  embrace- 
ments 
The  error  wherewith  I  form'd  such  false  sent'ments?^ 

Such  examples  of  his  carelessness  and  lack  of 
form  are  innumerable  and  may  be  found  on  every 
page.  His  style  may  be  judged  from  the  follow- 
ing samples,  from  the  last  scenes  of  Act  Second. 

Father  I  do  beseech  you  entertain 

these  passionate  Women ;  above  all  things  see 

they  come  not  forth,  their  troublesome  affection 

would  come  with  glory  from  their  eyes  and  tears 

to  interrupt  our  combat  and  what  they 

do  to  us  would  with  justice  do  ;  we  may  be 

perhaps  suspected  of  this  evil  artifice.^ 

1  Quand  pourrai-je  ^touffer  dans  tes  embrassements 
L'erreur  dont  j'ai  form6  de  si  faux  sentiments  ? 

2  Mon  pere,  retenez  ces  femmes  qui  s'emportent 
Et  de  grace  empechez  surtout  qu'elles  ne  sortent. 
Leur  amour  importun  viendrait  avec  6clat 

Par  des  cris  et  des  pleurs  troubler  notre  combat ; 
Et  ce  qu'elles  nous  sont  ferait  qu'avec  justice 
On  nous  imputerait  ce  mauvais  artifice. 


26       CORNEILLE   AND   RACINE   IN  ENGLAND 

This  is  absolutely  unintelligible  without  con- 
sulting the  French.  As  an  example  of  his 
best,  his  rendering  of  the  heroic  old  Roman's 
QuHl  mourut!  may  be  given  : 

What!  I  would  have  him  dye;  a  brave  dispaire 
Would  perhaps  have  assisted  him  had  he 
Deferred  his  defeat  a  minute  longer.^ 

Which  tame  reproduction  of  the  fiery  original 
seems  really  good  when  compared  with  the  rest 
of  the  play. 

Dr.  Mulert  says  that  it  is  not  probable  that 
either  of  these  plays  was  ever'  presented  on  the 
stage,  because  they  were  written  five  and  six 
years  before  the  reopening  of  the  theatres,  and 
because  they  are  so  poor  as  to  make  it  unlikely 
they  could  find  any  place  on  the  stage  where 
Dry  den's  powerful  heroic  couplets  were  the  ideal. 
But  when  the  translation  of  Le  Menteur  is  ex- 
amined, it  will  be  seen  that  poor  literary  quality 
was,  then  as  now,  no  hindrance  to  the  presenta- 
tion of  a  play  nor  to  its  success  on  the  stage. 
The  lack  of  merit  in  these  translations,  however, 

1  Qu'il  mourfit, 
Ou  qu'un  beau  dSsespoir  alors  le  secourfit. 
N'eut-il  que  d'un  moment  recul^  sa  d6faite, 
Borne  efit  €i€  du  moins  un  peu  plus  tard  sujette ; 


DURING  THE  COMMONWEALTH  27 

and  the  fact  that  probably  none  of  the  three 
ever  attained  any  prominence,  does  not  prevent 
their  appearance  from  having  considerable  sig- 
nificance. That  they  found  publishers  and 
readers  in  times  when  society  was  perturbed 
and  inimical  to  such  productions,  shows  that 
the  translators  of  the  Restoration  found  an 
audience  not  unprepared  to  appreciate  their 
work. 


III.     THE  MATCHLESS   ORINDA 

The  reign  of  Charles  II.  was  the  golden 
period  for  translations  from  French  tragedies. 
The  reasons  for  their  success  are  so  obvious  as 
to  be  scarcely  worth  repeating,  although  there 
were  several  factors  in  the  situation,  not  usually 
recognized.  The  immense  popularity  of  all 
things  French  at  this  time  has  been  empha- 
sized too  often  to  be  mentioned  again,  were  it 
not  for  the  fact  that  it  is  usually  attributed 
merely  to  the  wish  to  flatter  the  King  by  im- 
itating his  tastes.  Such  passages  as  the  fol- 
lowing in  the  dedication  of  one  translation 
from  the  French  have  perhaps  been  given  undue 
weight,  in  estimating  the  influence  of  the  Court  : 
"Though  my  humble  respects  to  her  Royal 
Highness  prompted  me  to  undertake  a  transla- 
tion in  verse  because  she  loves  plays  of  that  kind, 
yet  I  presume  not  to  beg  her  protection." 
(Carlell's  Eeraclius.^  This  is  undoubtedly  true 
to  a  great  extent,  but  if  the  situation  is  critically 
examined  it  may  be  seen  that  the  most  complete 


THE  MATCHLESS  ORINDA  29 

literary  sycophancy  cannot  explain  all  the  phe- 
nomena of  the  literary  activity  of  that  time. 

After  all,  how  did  Charles  acquire  his  French 
tastes  ?  By  living  in  and  near  France,  by  read- 
ing and  hearing  French  masterpieces,  by  breath- 
ing in  French  influence  during  an  impressionable 
period  of  his  life.  And  in  this  programme,  by 
how  many  exiled  Englishmen  he  was  followed  I 
There  is  no  reason  to  suppose  that  their  tastes 
were  any  less  sincerely  and  genuinely  French 
than  his.  Their  efforts  to  introduce  French 
ways  of  thought  into  English  literature  lose  an 
element  of  artificiality  if  they  are  regarded  as 
spontaneous  and  as  a  result  of  their  own  taste, 
even  if  this  taste  was  an  acquired  one.  If,  as 
seems  entirely  probable,  in  a  great  number  of 
cases  the  admiration  of  people  of  that  day  for 
French  models  was  a  genuine  one  and  not  actu- 
ated by  a  desire  to  follow  Court  fashions,  one 
can  but  have  more  respect  for  their  attempts 
to  build  English  works  with  French  material. 
This  view  of  the  part  that  French  influence 
played  in  English  literature  during  the  Eesto- 
ration  serves  also  to  explain  the  excellence  of 
the  translations  from  Corneille  which  appeared 
then  ;  for  they  are  the  best  in  the  language  — 


30       CORNEILLE  AND  RACINE  IN  ENGLAND 

few  of  them  poor  and  some  of  them  admirable. 
To  regard  them  as  part  of  a  movement  wholly 
artificial,  kept  alive  by  deference  to  the  opinions 
of  one  man,  could  not  explain  the  loving  care 
with  which  they  are  wrought  nor  the  excellence 
to  which  they  often  attain.  Another  factor  that 
deserves  serious  consideration  in  the  analysis  of 
the  situation  is  the  fact  that  stories  —  novels  — 
were  virtually  unknown  as  early  as  this,  and 
consequently  plays  were  quite  as  much  read  as 
seen.  People  in  all  times  have  demanded  the 
equivalent  of  stories ;  and  before  the  introduction 
of  the  novel  they  took  the  form  of  literature 
most  akin  to  stories,  and  read  plays.  This  fact 
is  very  well  known,  but  its  importance  in  con- 
nection with  the  translations  of  the  Restora- 
tion is  greater  than  appears  at  first  sight.  It 
furnishes  a  key  to  the  explanation  of  many  phe- 
nomena which  otherwise  would  be  perplexing. 
The  attempt  of  the  translators  of  the  Restora- 
tion was  not  primarily  to  make  plays  out  of 
French  tragedies,  but  English  works  of  litera- 
ture out  of  French  masterpieces.  It  is  true 
that  they  were  acted  —  these  translations — but 
the  painstaking  care  with  which  they  were  writ- 
ten, the  conscientious  attempt  to  follow  faith- 


THE  MATCHLESS  ORINDA  31 

fully  the  original,  and  the  effort  for  felicitous 
phrasing  give  evidence  that  the  authors  were 
prepared  for  a  closer  scrutiny  of  their  labor  than 
could  be  given  while  merely  hearing  their  verses 
recited.  They  expected  their  works  to  be  well 
and  handsomely  bound,  to  go  into  libraries,  to  be 
read  and  re-read,  as  they  undoubtedly  were. 
This  is  the  keynote  to  the  Restoration  transla- 
tions, and  the  great  difference  between  them  and 
the  eighteenth-century  translations. 

The  first  translation  to  appear  after  Charles's 
return  to  England  was  one  of  the  best  and  per- 
haps the  most  noted  of  all  ^  —  the  translation  of 
Pompee^  by  Mrs.  Katharine  Philips,  "the 
matchless  Orinda."  Mrs.  Philips  is  one  of  the 
prominent  figures  in  the  literary  world  of  her 
day  and  one  of  the  most  interesting.  Gosse 
has  devoted  a  chapter  in  his  Seventeenth  Century 
Studies  to  her,  where  he  makes  the  quaint,  sen- 
timental, industrious  little  lady  a  living  being. 

The  facts  of  her  biography,  commonplace 
enough,  are  as  follows:  She  was  the  daughter 
of  a  London  family  of  no  especial  note,  but  which 

1  Throughout  this  Study  general  statements  of  this  kind 
are  to  he  interpreted  as  referring  only  to  the  works  of  the 
three  authors  under  consideration. 


32       CORNEILLE  AND  RACINE  IN  ENGLAND 

gave  her  an  excellent  education.  She  was  early- 
interested  in  belles  lettres,  and  when  she  mar- 
ried it  was  a  great  grief  that  her  husband's 
means  compelled  them  to  leave  London  and  go 
to  live  on  his  estates  in  Wales,  far  from  the 
centre  of  literary  activity.  She  paid  frequent 
visits  to  Dublin  during  the  time  she  lived  in 
Wales,  but  these  were  her  only  opportunities  to 
come  in  contact  with  the  world  she  loved  till 
1664,  when  she  was  finally  enabled  to  make  a 
visit  to  London.  She  did  this  to  try  to  ad- 
vance her  husband's  interests,  through  the  in- 
fluence of  some  powerful  friends  whom  she  had 
won  through  her  literary  successes.  It  was  a 
fatal  journey,  as,  a  short  time  after  her  arrival, 
she  was  taken  ill  with  smallpox  and  died. 

This  separation  from  all  those  who  were  in- 
terested in  the  same  things  as  she,  has  one  good 
aspect  to  a  student  of  Mrs.  Philips's  life.  She 
became  the  most  assiduous  of  letter- writers,  and 
as  many  of  her  letters  have  been  preserved,  they 
form  a  valuable  source  of  information  about  her 
life  and  work,  and  especially  about  her  transla- 
tions which  were  perhaps  the  most  ambitious  of 
her  literary  undertakings. 

Dublin  was  at  this  time  a  brilliant  edition  of 


THE  MATCHLESS  ORINDA  33 

London.  The  crowd  of  English  people  of  rank 
and  fashion  connected  in  various  ways  with  the 
government,  whom  the  new  order  of  things  in 
Ireland  had  sent  there,  set  themselves  to  repro- 
duce in  miniature  the  London  life  they  had 
left.  A  fine  new  theatre  was  built,  better  than 
D'Avenant's  in  London,  and  the  first  really 
good  one  in  Ireland.  Society  centred  about 
the  castle  of  the  Lord-Lieutenant,  who  was  the 
Duke  of  Ormond.  The  Earl  of  Orrery,  a  fine 
scholar  and  much  devoted  to  French  models, 
was  Lord  Chief  Justice;  and  the  Earl  of  Ros- 
common, so  much  praised  by  Pope  and  Dryden 
for  his  integrity  and  generosity,  was  another 
prominent  figure  in  the  society  in  which  Mrs. 
Philips  found  herself  during  her  visits  to  Dub- 
lin. Her  correspondence  gives  vivid  pictures  of 
this  world  and  shows  it  to  have  been  one  very 
favorable  to  such  a  project  as  her  translation  of 
PompSe.  The  brilliant,  cultured  people  who 
ruled  it  regarded  themselves  as  exiles,  and  felt 
that  keen  desire  to  keep  in  touch  with  the 
movements  of  the  great  world  centres  which 
characterizes  exiles.  They  even  exaggerated 
the  prevailing  literary  fashions.  French  plays 
were  received  with  favor  in  London  —  they  were 


34       CORNEILLE  AND  RACINE  IN  ENGLAND 

received  with  enthusiasm  in  Dublin.  Elaborate 
stage  setting  was  coming  into  vogue  in  England; 
in  Ireland  the  Lord  Chief  Justice  gave  out  of 
his  own  pocket  a  hundred  pounds  for  Roman 
and  Egyptian  costumes  for  Mrs.  Philips's 
PompSe. 

Translations  of  all  kinds  were  in  great  favor, 
and  there  are  constant  references  to  them  in 
Mrs.  Philips's  letters. ^  Such  paragraphs  as  the 
following  are  of  frequent  occurrence  :  "  My 
Lord  Roscommon  is  a  very  ingenious  Person  of 
excellent  natural  parts  and  certainly  the  most 
hopeful  young  nobleman  in  Ireland.  He  has 
translated  the  Scene  of  Qare  Selve  Beate  in 
Pastor  Fido  very  finely;  in  many  places  better 
than  Sir  Richard  Fanshaw."  "Above  all  forget 
not  my  request  for  your  Temple  of  Death  (a 
translation).  And  now  I  speak  of  that  poem, 
what  progress  have  you  made  in  your  translation 
from  the  Spanish  ?  " 

It  was  at  the  request  of  the  Earl  of  Orrery 
himself  that  she  completed  her  translation  of 
PompSe^  and  naturally  he  was  deeply  interested 

1  The  collection  printed  under  the  title  of  Letters  from 
Orinda  to  Poliarchus  is  the  source  of  all  quotations  made 
from  Mrs.  Philips's  letters. 


THE  MATCHLESS  ORINDA  35 

in  its  success.  Mrs.  Philips  had  many  misgiv- 
ings about  her  tragedy  when  it  was  completed, 
and  sent  it  post-haste  (which  was  very  slow 
haste  at  that  time)  to  her  Mentor,  Poliarchus  — 
Sir  Charles  Cotterell.  The  stir  that  was  made 
about  it  seems  to  have  alarmed  her,  and  she 
could  not  rest  till  she  had  the  opinion  of  her 
chief  literary  adviser.  "  I  long  to  have  your 
opinion  of  it  for  I  fear  I  have  murthered  him 
more  barbarously  here  than  Achilles  did  in 
Egypt,  and  that  my  Lord  Orrery's  commands  to 
me  have  prov'd  no  less  fatal  to  him  than  the 
Orders  that  Ptolemy  gave  to  that  Assassin." 
The  letter  in  which  this  passage  is  found  was 
written  the  22d  of  October,  1662,  but  not  un- 
til the  end  of  November  did  she  have  any  reply 
from  Sir  Charles,  owing  to  the  bad  system  of 
posts  and  to  terrible  storms  which  drove  back 
from  the  coast  of  Ireland  all  vessels  attempting 
to  make  the  crossing.  Poliarchus  evidently 
replied  in  the  most  flattering  way,  for  her  im- 
patience at  not  hearing  from  him  suddenly  turns 
into  the  most  grateful  thanks  for  a  favorable 
judgment.  After  that  long  delay,  however,  it 
would  have  been  impossible  to  make  any  changes 
even  if  he  had  suggested  them ;  for,  she  says, 


36      CORNEILLE  AND  RACINE  IN  ENGLAND 

"  In  spight  of  all  I  could  do  to  prevent  it  many 
copies  are  abroad."  She  speaks  in  another 
letter  of  the  rapid  way  her  tragedy  is  gaining 
publicity,  being  copied  over  and  over  from  the 
manuscript.  The  interest  in  it  can  be  deter- 
mined from  this  detail. 

The  representation  must  have  been  the  great 
event  in  society  during  that  winter  (1663). 
The  English  gentry  in  Dublin  had  many  hours 
of  leisure  and  ample  opportunity  to  think  of 
every  embellishment  possible  to  add  lustre  to 
the  production  of  their  beloved  Orinda's  play. 
On  the  10th  of  January,  1663,  Mrs.  Philips 
writes  that  songs  between  the  acts  are  to  be 
added,  "  done  by  the  greatest  Masters  in  Eng- 
land." Lord  Roscommon  himself  wrote  the 
Prologue,  and  Sir  Edward  the  Epilogue.  The 
grateful  Orinda  says  of  them,  "They  are  the 
best  writ  that  ever  I  read  in  anything  of  that 
kind."  John  Ogilby,  manager  of  the  new 
theatre,  added  dances  to  be  given  after  the 
songs  between  the  acts,  and  a  Grand  Masque 
was  presented  at  the  end.  The  performance 
was  to  be  as  dazzling  as  talent,  ingenuity  and 
money  could  make  it.  Mrs.  Philips's  letters  run 
in  a  constantly  ascending  scale  of  enthusiasm 


THE   MATCHLESS  ORINDA  37 

and  anticipation,  and  it  is  with  real  regret  that 
the  expectant  reader  turns  the  page  of  the  last 
letter  before  the  performance  and  finds  a  gap  of 
two  months  between  that  and  the  next  one. 
It  is  an  unequalled  opportunity  lost  for  Orinda 
to  display  her  rhetoric,  and  brandish  her  some- 
what aggressive  modesty  in  the  face  of  the 
admiring  Poliarchus.  She  had  written  before 
that  she  submitted  to  have  her  play  put  on  the 
stage  only  because  she  was  forced  to  do  so  by 
her  powerful  and  noble  friends.  Lord  Orrery 
is  "  resolved  to  have  Pompey  acted  here  which, 
notwithstanding  all  my  Intreaties  to  the  con- 
trary, he  is  going  on  with.  All  the  other  Per- 
sons of  Quality  here  are  also  very  earnest  to 
bring  it  on  the  stage,  and  seem  resolv'd  to 
endure  the  Penance  of  seeing  it  played." 

It  may  be  that  Mrs.  Philips's  modesty  was  too 
great  to  allow  her  to  describe  the  success  of  the 
representation,  for  all  evidence  shows  that  it 
was  brilliant  and  that  she  received  an  ovation. 
It  is  not  hard  to  imagine  the  glow  of  the  occa- 
sion or  the  flood  of  felicitations  that  must  have 
poured  in  on  the  happy  and  glorified  Orinda. 

Mrs.  Philips's  next  letter  is  dated  the  8th  of 
April.      She  speaks  of   sending   a  "packet  of 


38       CORNEILLE  AND  RACINE  IN  ENGLAND 

printed  Pompeys  "  to  Sir  Charles  Cotterell  for 
him  to  distribute.  She  wishes  one  bound  and 
given  to  the  Duchess,  and  "if  you  think  the 
King  would  allow  such  a  Trifle  a  Place  in  his 
Closet,  let  him  have  another."  She  speaks 
with  much  more  confidence  under  her  cover  of 
self-depreciation  and  with  the  air  of  one  who 
knows  herself  a  personage.  E  vidently  the  trans- 
lation has  been  the  sensation  of  the  day.  "  I 
have  had  many  Letters  and  Copies  of  Verses 
sent  me,  some  from  my  Acquaintances  and  some 
from  Strangers  to  compliment  me  upon  Pom- 
pey^  which,  were  I  capable  of  vanity  would 
even  surfeit  me  with  it,  for  they  are  so  full  of 
Flattery  that  I  have  not  the  confidence  to  send 
them  to  you."  Five  hundred  copies  were 
printed  in  Dublin  and  soon  all  sold.  Herring- 
man,  the  London  publisher,  "has  written  me 
to  give  him  leave  to  reprint  it  at  London." 

On  the  earlier  pages  of  the  large  volume  con- 
taining all  her  works,  published  in  London  in 
1678,  there  are  many  pieces  of  verse  addressed 
to  Mrs.  Philips.  These  are  probably  the  ones 
to  which  she  refers,  and  for  once  they  deserve 
all  that  her  excessive  modesty  feels  about  them 
—  flattery  could  go  no  farther.      One  or  two 


THE  MATCHLESS   ORINDA  39 

examples  will  show  their  spirit.  The  Earl  of 
Orrery  says  : 

The  French  to  learn  our  language  now  will  seek 
To  hear  their  greatest  wit  more  nobly  speak, 
And  all  those  wreaths  once  circled  Pompey's  brow 
Exalt  his  fame  less  than  your  verses  now. 
From  these  clear  truths  all  must  acknowledge  this, 
If  there  be  Helicon  in  Wales  it  is. 
Oh,  happy  country  which  to  our  Prince  gives 
His  title  and  in  which  Orinda  lives. 

An  unknown  woman  writes  a  long  poem  exalt- 
ing Mrs.  Philips  to  the  skies  : 

Pompey,  who  greater  than  himself 's  become 
Now  in  your  Poem  than  before  in  Rome, 
He  thanks  false  Egypt  for  its  Treacherie 
Since  that  his  Rime  is  sung  by  thee. 
If  that  all  Egypt  for  to  purge  its  Crime 
Were  built  into  one  Pyramid  o'er  him 
Pompey  would  lie  less  stately  in  that  Herse 
Than  he  doth  now,  Orinda,  in  thy  Verse. 

The  absurdly  exaggerated  form  of  these  trib- 
utes is  of  course  partly  due  to  the  taste  of  the 
time ;  but,  making  every  allowance,  it  indicates 
a  very  general  and  widespread  admiration  of 
Mrs.  Philips's  Pompey ;  which  upon  taking  up 
the  translation  itself  is  seen  to  be  quite  justi- 
fied. 


40       CORNEILLE  AND  RACINE  IN  ENGLAND 

After  the  obscure  translations  which  had 
preceded  this  effort  of  Mrs.  Philips,  one  is 
quite  dazzled  by  the  stir  her  Pompey  made  in 
the  literary  world,  and  inclined  to  linger  long 
over  the  agreeable  incidents  of  success  which 
form  such  a  contrast  to  the  silence  which  reigns 
concerning  the  translations  made  during  the 
Commonwealth.  All  these  flattering  verses  and 
the  tribute  which  by  common  consent  was  paid 
to  her,  lead  one  to  expect  of  her  work  either 
something  quite  above  the  common  order,  or  to 
dread  coming  upon  one  of  .  those  melancholy 
wrecks  which  fill  literary  history  —  a  favorite 
of  the  hour  who,  honored  beyond  measure  by 
his  contemporaries,  is  misled  by  flattery  into  a 
franker  and  franker  disclosure  of  his  medioc- 
rity, exaggerates  his  bad  qualities  because  he 
finds  them  unreproved,  and  leaves  to  posterity 
(judging  him  with  cool  heads)  a  reputation 
which  would  be  pitiful  were  it  not  that  as  a 
rule  he  is  so  completely  forgotten  as  even  to 
escape  ridicule.  Mrs.  Philips  is  neither  for- 
gotten nor  ridiculous.  True,  she  is  not  to  us  as 
to  her  contemporaries  "  the  matchless  Orinda," 
and  some  of  her  exaggerated  expressions  of  lit- 
erary bashfulness  bring  a  smile  to  the  lips  of  a 


THE  MATCHLESS  ORINDA  41 

sceptical  generation.  But  her  two  translations 
of  Pomjpee  and  Horace  are  proofs  of  good  judg- 
ment, taste,  and  real  talent  such  as  no  one  need 
be  ashamed  to  leave  behind  him.  The  con- 
scientious, well-trained  literary  worker  is  every- 
where apparent,  and  the  poet  of  undoubted  talent 
shows  herself  if  not  on  every  page  at  least  at 
crucial  points. 

This  is  the  first  rhymed  version  of  a  French 
tragedy  made  in  English,  and  the  ability  with 
which  Mrs.  Philips  handles  the  heroic  couplet 
gives  to  the  English  a  much  closer  resemblance 
to  the  French  than  blank  verse  can  ever  do. 
It  would  be  difficult  to  think  of  Mrs.  Philips's 
using  blank  verse  in  any  work  of  this  kind,  for 
she  seems  to  have  imbued  herself  with  the  spirit 
of  the  original  so  thoroughly  that  the  rhyme,  an 
essential  element  in  the  French,  would  have 
come  inevitably  to  her  lips  in  translating.  She 
was  from  the  first  a  copious  writer,  much  given 
to  inditing  extremely  affectionate  poems  to  her 
women  friends,  and  her  long  practice  in  rhyming 
laments  for  her  beloved  Lucasia  stands  her  in 
good  stead  in  rendering  the  swelling  Cornel- 
lian  Alexandrines. 

Any  passage  chosen  at  random  will  show  the 


42       CORNEILLE  AND  RACINE  IN  ENGLAND 

conscientious  fidelity  of  Orinda  to  her  text; 
and  passages  chosen  with  only  a  little  care  will 
show  that  higher  fidelity  to  the  spirit  of  the 
original  and  success  in  reproducing  it  which 
make  her  the  best  of  Restoration  translators, 
and  perhaps  the  best  who  ever  translated 
French  tragedy.     (Act  IV.  Scene  4.) 

Oh,  truly  Roman  heart 
And  worthy  Him  of  whom  you  were  a  part, 
His  Soul  which  sees  from  its  exalted  State 
How  I  endeavor  to  revenge  his  Fate 
Forgets  his  hate  and  is  become  so  kind 
To  save  my  life  by  what  he  left  behind. 
Whatever  Treason  could  to  Pompey  do 
Yet  he  doth  still  subsist  and  act  in  you 
And  prompts  you  to  a  thing  so  brave  that  he 
May  vanquish  me  in  generosity.i 

There  could  scarcely  be  a  translation  more 
faithful.  In  one  of  her  letters  to  Poliarchus 
Mrs.  Philips  sets  up  for  herself  the  following 

1  Cesar.   O  cceur  vraiment  romain 
Et  digne  du  h^ros  qui  vous  donna  la  main  ! 
Ses  mS-nes  qui  du  ciel  ont  vu  de  quel  courage 
Je  pr^parais  la  mienne  h  venger  son  outrage, 
Mettant  leur  haine  has,  me  sauvent  aujourd'hui 
Par  la  moiti6  qu'en  terre  11  nous  laisse  de  lui. 
II  vit,  il  vit  encore  en  I'objet  de  sa  flamme  ; 
n  parle  par  sa  bouche,  il  agit  dans  son  S-me ; 
II  la  pousse,  et  P oppose  a  cette  indignity 
Pour  me  vaincre  par  elle  en  g6n6rosit6. 


THE  MATCHLESS  ORINDA  43 

ideal  of  Translation  :  "  I  think  a  Translation 
ought  not  to  be  us'd  as  Musicians  do  a  ground 
with  all  the  liberty  of  Descant,  but  as  Painters 
when  they  copy."  This  is  an  ideal  of  fidelity 
which  she  has  successfully  realized  in  almost 
every  instance.  In  the  passage  just  quoted 
there  is  only  one  line  where  the  translator  has 
deviated  in  the  slightest  from  a  word-for-word 
rendering  of  Corneille,  and  yet  she  has  repro- 
duced his  ten  lines  in  ten  of  her  own.  An 
example  of  her  power  to  reproduce  the  elo- 
quence of  her  original  with  the  very  same 
shade  of  rhetorical  grandeur  is  found  in  Act  III. 
Scene  4,  in  Cornelia's  Roman  speech: 

How  rude  soever  Fortune  makes  her  blow, 
1  Crassus's  widow  once  and  Pompey's  now, 
Great  Scipio's  daughter  (and  what's  higher  yet) 
A  Roman,  have  a  Courage  still  more  great. 
And  of  all  strokes  her  cruelty  can  give 
Nothing  can  make  me  blush  but  that  I  live 
And  have  not  f ollow'd  Pompey  when  he  dy'd ; 
For  though  the  means  to  do  it  were  deny'd 
And  cruel  Pity  would  not  let  me  have 
The  quick  assistance  of  a  Steel  or  Wave, 
Yet  I'm  ashamed  that  after  such  a  Woe 
Grief  had  not  done  as  much  as  they  could  do.^ 

1  Cornelie.   De  quelque  rude  trait  qu'il  m'ose  avoir 
frapp^e 


44       CORNEILLE  AND  RACINE  IN  ENGLAND 

This  passage  —  line-for-line,  spirited  rendering 
as  it  is  — is  not  an  example  of  Mrs.  Philips's 
best  work,  as  the  rhymes  are  not  as  pure  as  she 
usually  finds  them. 

If  it  did  not  smack  too  strongly  of  her  circle 
of  adoring  friends,  one  might  almost  venture  to 
say  that  in  one  or  two  places  she  has  improved 
on  Corneille.     (Act  IV.  Scene  3.) 

Ccesar.  But  yet  my  passion  its  own  harm  procures, 
For  I  must  quit  you  if  I  will  be  yours 
While  there  are  flying  foes  I  must  pursue, 
That  I  may  them  defeat  and  merit  you. 
To  bear  that  absence  therefore  suffer  me 
To  take  such  courage  from  the  charms  I  see 
That  frighted  Nations  may  at  Caesar's  name 
Say,  He  but  came  and  saw  and  overcame.^ 

Veuve  du  jeune  Crasse  et  veuve  de  Pomp^e, 
Fille  de  Scipion,  et  pour  dire  encore  plus, 
Romaine,  mon  courage  est  encore  au-dessus  ; 
Et  de  tons  les  assauts  que  sa  rigeur  me  livre, 
Rien  ne  me  fait  rougir  que  la  honte  de  vivre. 
J'ai  vu  mourir  Pomp^e  et  ne  I'ai  pas  suivi ; 
Et  bien  que  le  moyen  m'en  ait  €t6  ravi 
Qu'une  piti4  cruelle  ^  mes  douleurs  profondes 
M'ait  6t6  le  secours  et  du  fer  et  des  ondes, 
Je  dois  rougir  pourtant,  apr^s  un  tel  malheur, 
De  n'avoir  pu  mourir  d'un  exchs  de  douleur. 
1  Cesar.   Mais,  las  !  centre  mon  feu  mon  feu  me  soUicite. 
Si  je  veux  §tre  k  vous,  il  faut  que  je  vous  quitte. 
En  quelques  lieux  qu'on  fuie,  il  me  faut  y  courir, 


THE   MATCHLESS   ORINDA  45 

Corneille  has  lost  nothing  at  least,  in  the  ren- 
dering of  these  last  two  lines. 

It  is  not  surprising  that  so  good  a  piece  of 
work  was  very  popular,  and  it  is  with  real  sat- 
isfaction that  one  notes  its  continued  success 
on  the  Irish  stage.  Later  on  it  was  played  to 
delighted  audiences  in  London.  Ballard  and 
Langbaine  both  speak  of  having  heard  it  acted 
"with  great  commendation  at  the  Duke  of 
York's  theatre  as  late  as  1678." 

The  embellishments  which  the  taste  of  that 
period  added  to  it  probably  had  something  to 
do  with  its  remaining  on  the  stage ;  but  its 
success  as  a  book-play,  as  pure  literature  (to- 
gether with  the  rest  of  Mrs.  Philips's  work),  is 
attested  by  the  fact  that  there  were  editions  of 
her  works  published  in  1667,  in  1669,  1678,  and 
1710,  four  in  all,  covering  a  period  of  thirty- 
seven  years  after  her  death. 

The  translation  of  Horace^  which  was  the  last 
work  of  Mrs.  Philips's  life  and  which  she  left 
unfinished,   was   no   less    admirable   than    her 

Pour  achever  de  vaincre  et  de  vous  conqu6rir. 
Permettez  cependant  qu'k  ses  douces  amorces 
Je  prenne  un  nouveau  coeur  et  de  nouvelles  forces, 
Pour  faire  dire  encore,  aux  peuples  pleins  d'effroi, 
Que  venir,  voir  et  vaincre,  est  m§me  chose  en  moi. 


46       CORNEILLE  AND  RACINE  IN  ENGLAND 

Pompey,  At  the  time  of  her  death  she  had 
completed  all  but  the  last  act,  which  was  after- 
wards translated  by  Sir  John  Denham.  The 
edition  of  her  complete  works  published  in  1667 
does  not  contain  the  completed  tragedy,  but  by 
1669  the  fifth  act  had  been  added.  The  se- 
quence of  these  events  aids  in  determining  the 
date  of  the  first  presentation.  Evelyn's  inval- 
uable testimony  is  another  help.  He  writes  on 
the  4th  of  February,  1668,  "  I  saw  the  tragedy 
of  Horace  written  by  the  virtuous  Mrs.  Philips 
acted  before  their  Majesties."  If  this  was  not 
the  first  time,  it  must  have  been  one  of  the  first, 
as  Denham  died  in  March,  1668. 

Sir  John  Denham  was  one  of  the  popular 
poets  of  the  Court,  and  the  publishers  of  that 
time  undoubtedly  thought  themselves  very 
fortunate  in  securing  his  name  for  their  edition 
of  Mrs.  Philips's  complete  works.  As  a  matter 
of  fact  his  method  of  translation  was  not 
suitable  for  a  continuation  of  Mrs.  Philips's 
work.  It  is  smooth  and  flowing,  but  very  much 
less  exact  and  faithful.  He  gives  himself  no 
trouble  to  find  a  rendering  of  a  difficult  pas- 
sage, but  either  omits  it  or  uses  swelling  gen- 
eralities which  reproduce  in  no  way  the  vigor 


THE  MATCHLESS  ORINDA  47 

and  precision  of  the  original.  The  last  edition 
of  Mrs.  Philips's  works  (published  in  1710) 
seems  to  have  found  a  very  discriminating 
publisher,  for  he  inserted  in  place  of  Sir  John 
Denham's  work  the  fifth  act  of  Charles  Cotton's 
Horace,  which  is  much  more  in  keeping  with 
Orinda's  general  spirit  of  careful  accuracy.  ^ 
Much  might  be  written  about  this  second  of 
Mrs.  Philips's  translated  tragedies,  but,  in 
general,  all  that  has  been  said  of  her  Pompey 
applies  equally  to  her  Horace  —  it  is  a  dignified, 
faithful,  and  spirited  rendering  of  the  French; 
in  some  respects  better  than  the  Pompey,  for 
she  seems  to  have  more  confidence  and  less 
constraint. 

It  was  no  less  prosperous  on  the  stage  than 
Pompey ;  although  there  were  no  such  pictu- 
resque incidents  surrounding  its  first  represen- 
tation. The  quotation  already  given  from 
Evelyn,  shows  that  it  was  in  favor  at  Court. 
Langbaine  says  it  was  repeatedly  "acted  at 
Court  by  Persons  of  Quality,"  but  he  does  not 
give  an  exact  date.  If  it  were  not  for  that 
note    in   Evelyn's    diary,   an   entry   made    by 

1  This  change  from  Denham's  fifth  act  to  Cotton's  has 
apparently  passed  unnoticed  by  most  bibliographers. 


48       CORNEILLE    AND   RACINE   IN  ENGLAND 

Pepys  would  be  misleading.  He  says,  on 
the  19th  of  January,  1669,  "To  the  King's 
House  to  see  Horace  this  third  day  of  its  act- 
ing." He  must  mean  of  course  the  third  of 
its  run  that  year,  for  Evelyn's  testimony  is 
unequivocal.  Horace^  as  well  as  Pompey^  was 
enlivened  by  songs  and  dances  between  the 
acts,  of  which  diversions  Evelyn  gravely  says, 
"  'Twixt  each  act  a  masque  and  antique  daunce." 
Pepys,  however,  in  his  account  makes  remarks 
on  the  play  and  the  hors  cfceuvre  with  which  it 
was  served  up,  which  are  deliciously  graphic 
in  their  delineation  of  one  Englishman  who  was 
not  under  the  domination  of  French  taste. 
The  picture  he  presents  not  only  of  his  own 
ideas  but  of  the  concessions  made  to  English 
taste  is  amusing  beyond  expression.  After  not- 
ing the  play  as  quoted  above,  he  says  suc- 
cinctly :  "  A  silly  tragedy ;  but  Lacy  hath 
made  a  farce  of  several  dances,  between  each  act 
one  ;  his  words  are  but  silly  and  invention  not 
extraordinary  as  to  the  dances ;  only  some 
Dutchmen  came  out  of  the  mouth  and  tail  of  a 
Hamburgh  sow.  Thence  not  much  pleased 
with  play."  Probably  no  better  picture  of  the 
common  English  audience  of  the  period  could 


THE  MATCHLESS  ORINDA  49 

be  drawn  than  is  shown  by  these  few  remarks. 
Pepys  is  unmistakable  when  he  shows  them  thus 
yielding  to  the  French  tastes  of  the  gentry 
to  the  extent  of  considering  it  the  proper  thing 
to  go  to  hear  tragedies  but  welcoming  gladly, 
as  a  rest  from  the  monotony  of  a  masterpiece 
like  Horace^  the  antics  of  clowns. 

Such  unworthy  companions*  would  never 
have  been  thrust  upon  the  exalted  Romans  of 
Corneille's  play  if  Mrs.  Philips  had  been  alive 
to  defend  her  work.  It  is  true  that  there  were 
songs  and  dances  between  the  acts  of  Pompey^ 
but  that  was  a  very  different  matter.  They 
were  of  Mrs.  Philips's  own  invention,  and  are 
quite  dignified  enough  to  be  in  harmony  with 
the  general  atmosphere  of  the  play.  Moreover, 
they  are  linked  to  the  action  ;  sometimes  in 
the  most  naive  manner,  it  is  true,  but  always 
with  an  idea  of  unity.  "  After  the  first  act  the 
King  and  Photin  should  be  discovered  sitting 
and  hearing  to  this  song."  This  is  a  harmless 
enough  addition,  and  has  nothing  in  common 
with  the  appearance  of  Dutch  clowns  from  the 
head  and  tail  of  a  sow,  which  so  pleased  the 
honest  Pepys. 

In  spite  of  what  has  been  said  of  the  French 


50       CORNEILLE  AND  RACINE  IN  ENGLAND 

training  of  many  of  the  nobility,  during  the 
exile  of  Charles  II.,  it  is  evident  that  people 
in  Pepys's  station  in  life,  except  for  a  thin 
veneer  were  no  less  English  than  the  sim- 
ilar class  during  the  reign  of  Elizabeth.  The 
gentry  might  be,  and  probably  were,  sincere 
in  their  admiration  for  translated  French 
tragedy,  but  the  people  of  the  middle  class  no 
less  sincerely  disliked  them. 


IV.     THE   "PERSONS   OF  HONOUR" 

All  through  Mrs.  Philips's  correspondence  at 
the  time  of  the  production  of  her  Pomjpey^  there 
was  a  note  of  uneasiness  about  the  reception 
which  her  translation  would  meet.  This  can- 
not be  accounted  for  wholly  by  her  usual 
self -depreciation,  and  was  not  without  good 
ground.  She  seems  to  have  known  from  the 
beginning  of  her  undertaking  that  she  was  not 
the  first  in  the  field,  for  she  writes  to  Cot- 
terell  on  the  29th  of  August,  1662  (the  sum- 
mer before  her  translation  was  presented), 
"  You  will  wonder  at  my  Lord's  Obstinacy  in 
this  desire  to  have  me  translate  Pompey^  as 
well  because  of  my  Incapacity  to  perform  it 
as  that  so  many  others  have  undertaken  it." 
She  refers  to  a  translation  which  appeared  in 
1664,  with  the  title,  "  Pompey  the  Great,"  writ- 
ten by  a  group  of  authors  vaguely  designated 
as  "certain  Persons  of  Honour."  Waller,  the 
Earl  of  Dorset,  Sir  Charles  Sedley,  Sidney  Go- 
dolphin,  and  Sir  Edward  Filmore  are  all  said  to 
51 


(^  or  THE  X 

UNIVERSITY   ) 

•*^«^=«^COfRNEILLE  AND   RACINE  IN  ENGLAND 

have  worked  together  to  perfect  this  transla- 
tion, and  they  formed  a  brilliant  company  at 
that  time,  who  had  all  the  advantages  of 
reputation  and  prestige  at  Court  in  their  favor. 
Mrs.  Philips  must  have  known  very  well  that 
the  publication  of  their  version  of  Pompee  could 
not  fail  to  make  a  great  stir  in  literary  circles. 
She  seems  to  have  been  alarmed  lest  their 
work  appear  first;  for  on  December  23d,  1662, 
she  writes,  urging  the  immediate  presentation 
of  a  copy  of  her  Pompey  to  the  Duchess  of 
York,  "The  other  Translation  done  by  so 
many  eminent  hands  will  otherwise  appear 
first  and  throw  this  into  everlasting  obscu- 
rity: unless  it  gets  as  much  the  start  of  that 
in  Time  as  it  comes  behind  it  in  Merit." 
On  October  19th,  1662,  when  she  had  just 
finished  the  first  draft  of  her  tragedy,  she 
writes,  "  Artaban  will  soon  bring  you  my  trans- 
lation of  Pompey  which  I  fear  will  not  be 
deemed  worthy  to  breathe  in  a  place  where 
so  many  of  the  greatest  Wits  have  so  long 
clubb'd  for  another  of  the  same  play." 

These  references  show  without  doubt  that 
it  was  a  well-known  undertaking.  It  is  not 
impossible  that  Lord  Orrery's  eagerness  to  have 


THE  "PERSONS  OF  HONOUR"       53 

this  tragedy  translated  and  played  in  Dublin 
may  have  had  in  it  an  element  of  rivalry  with 
London  literary  circles.  If  he  had  any  notion 
of  outdoing  the  Court  in  its  own  speciality, 
he  must  have  derived  much  satisfaction  from 
the  outcome  of  the  competition,  for  not  only 
did  his  "  matchless  Orinda  "  complete  her  work 
eight  months  before  the  others,  but  she  pro- 
duced a  more  creditable  translation.  There 
seems  to  be  little  doubt  that  she  realized  her 
own  superiority  after  she  had  recovered  from 
the  first  feeling  of  alarm  at  the  famous  names 
of  her  rivals. 

There  is  a  difference  of  opinion  among  the 
authorities  as  to  the  complete  list  of  collabora- 
tors working  on  this  version,  but  two  names 
at  least  are  assured.  No  one  doubts  that 
Waller  wrote  the  first  act,  and  Charles  Sack- 
ville  the  fourth.  These  were  two  great 
names  at  the  Court  of  Charles  II.  Probably 
the  critics  of  that  year  would  have  called 
Waller  "the  most  polite  poet  of  the  time," 
and  his  sweet  notes  are  still  sounding  faintly 
in  our  own  day,  audible  even  to  those  who 
make  no  special  study  of  that  period.  In  the 
biography  of  Sir  Charles  Sedley,  preceding  an 


64       CORNEILLE  AND  RACINE  IN  ENGLAND 

edition  of  his  works  published  in  1722,  there 
is  a  list  of  eminent  men  of  letters  at  the 
Court,  who  were  at  the  same  time  people  of 
high  birth.  "...  among  the  Gentry,  Sir  John 
Denham,  Mr.  Waller,  Mr.  Godolphin,  Sir  Henry 
Saville,  Sir  Fleetwood  Shepherd,  Mr.  Butler, 
and  Sir  Charles  Sedley."  (Vol.  I.  p.  5.)  Of 
these  seven  names,  three  are  connected  with 
the  Persons  of  Honour  translation;  while  Sir 
John  Denham  finished  Mrs.  Philips's  Horace 
after  her  death.  This  is  a  larger  proportion 
of  authors  interested  in  serious  translations 
than  would  be  found  among  a  similar  list  of 
literary  people  of  the  present  day. 

Waller,  Denham,  and  Sedley  were  among 
the  bright  literary  lights  of  their  day,  and  on 
this  account  it  is  interesting  to  observe  the 
prominence  given  to  translations  in  their  works. 
Not  only  do  they  make  many  English  versions 
of  foreign  poems  themselves,  but  the  titles  in 
the  collections  of  their  "  occasional  verse  "  show 
that  it  was  a  common  practice  among  their 
friends.  Such  titles  as  the  following  are  not 
rare:  "To  his  worthy  Friend  Sir  Thomas 
Higgon,  upon  his  translation  of  The  Venetian 
Triumph'" ;  "To  his  worthy  friend  Master  Eve- 


THE  "PERSONS  OF  HONOUR"       55 

lyn,  upon  his  translation  of  Lucretius''' ;  "To 
Mr.  Creech,  upon  his  translation  of  Lucretius, ''' 
St.  Evremond's  well-known  letter  to  Corneille, 
quoted  by  Marty-La veaux  ^  is  significant  in 
this  regard  also:  "M.  Waller,  un  des  beaux 
esprits  du  siecle  attend  toujours  vos  pieces 
nouvelles  et  ne  manque  pas  d*en  traduire  un 
acte  ou  deux  en  vers  anglais,  pour  sa  satisfac- 
tion particuliere." 

The  admiring  way  in  which  all  critics  of 
the  day  speak  of  Sir  Richard  Fanshawe's 
translation  of  Guarini's  Pastor  Fido  is  another 
instance  of  the  seriousness  with  which  such 
efforts  were  regarded.  It  all  shows  that  an 
importance  was  attached  to  translation  which 
is  quite  incomprehensible  to  modern  minds. 

To  return  to  the  enumeration  of  the  com- 
posers of  the  particular  translation  under  con- 
sideration—  Waller,  then,  was  a  famous  per- 
sonage, and  Sackville  and  Sedley  were  no  less 
well  known  in  their  way.  Sedley  is  noted 
among  the  comedy  writers  of  the  later  Res- 
toration, and  Sackville,  under  the  name  of  Lord 
Buckhurst,  is  a  familiar  figure  to  students  of 
that  time,  although  not  so  largely  through  his 

1  In  his  edition  of  Corneille' s  works,  Vol.  X.  p.  499. 


56       CORNEILLE  AND  RACINE  IN  ENGLAND 

literary  achievements  as  by  his  gay  life.  He 
is  the  Lord  Buckhurst  who  was  ranked  by 
Pepys  with  Sedley  as  disgracefully  riotous.  In 
his  later  years  he  became  more  decorous  and 
was  noted  for  his  generosity  to  literary  folk. 
Of  the  other  two  authors  little  is  known.  Sir 
Edward  Filmore  is  quite  obscure,  and  Sidney 
Godolphin's  connection  is  doubtful.  He  is  not 
mentioned  by  Mrs.  Philips  as  among  the  au- 
thors, but  almost  all  literary  historians  include 
him  in  the  list.  Mulert^  excludes  him  on  the 
ground  that  a  Sidney  Godolphin  died  in  1643. 
There  is  his  nephew  of  the  same  name,  how- 
ever, who  at  this  time  was  just  entering  the 
Court  as  a  young  man,  and  who  afterwards 
became  a  noted  financier.  In  the  full  study  of 
his  life  by  the  Honorable  Hugh  Elliot,  it  is 
stated  that  he  spent  his  youth  on  the  continent 
with  Charles  II.  in  exile,  and  returned  with 
him  to  England.  There  is,  therefore,  no  reason 
to  say  positively  that  he  did  not  collaborate  in 
the  Englishing  of  Pompee^  nor,  on  the  other 
hand,  does  there  appear  to  be  more  than  a 
vague  tradition  that  he  did.  At  least,  the  trans- 
lation which  Mrs.  Philips  so  much  feared  was 

1  Pierre  Corneille  auf  der  Englischen  Biihne,  p.  38. 


THE   "PERSONS  OF  HONOUR"  67 

undoubtedly  written  by  a  very  distinguisbed 
company  of  "Gentry." 

The  number  of  hands  at  work  on  this  trag- 
edy did  not  finish  it  as  soon  as  the  single  efforts 
of  the  industrious  Orinda.  It  was  probably  not 
until  October  of  1663  (eight  months  after  Mrs. 
Philips's  had  appeared  on  the  stage)  that  Pom- 
pey  the  Gireat  was  acted;  and  the  first  edition 
was  not  published  till  1664,  sometime  in  the 
following  year. 

There  are  three  epilogues  and  a  prologue 
attached  to  it  which  have  a  certain  interest  in 
showing  where  the  tragedy  was  performed. 
The  prologue  and  one  epilogue  are  as  given  "  at 
the  House."  The  second  epilogue  is  "  To  the 
King  at  Saint  James's,"  and  the  third  "  To  the 
Dutchess  at  Saint  James."  These  show  that 
the  tragedy  was  accorded  the  honor  of  presen- 
tation at  Court.  The  versification  of  these 
productions  is  not  at  all  remarkable,  although 
they  are  smooth  and  flowing  enough.  There  is 
one  passage  in  the  prologue  which  has  a  certain 
interest  as  showing  the  value  accorded  to 
PompSe  in  English  minds,  and  explaining  the 
curious  prominence  given  it  by  these  two 
famous  translations : 


58       CORNEILLE  AND  RACINE  IN  ENGLAND 

Who  nothing  will  but  what  is  Home-bred  taste 
Must  live  content  with  Acorns  and  with  Mast. 
For  your  Diversion  we  this  Night  present 
A  fruit  which  grew  upon  the  Continent ; 
Of  all  that's  French  'tis  ranked  among  the  best, 
And  may  prove  better  in  our  language  dressed. 

The  three  epilogues  are  all  equally  uninterest- 
ing, composed  of  the  usual  flowery  compli- 
ments to  the  King  and  the  ladies.  The  only 
reference  which  tells  anything  of  the  transla- 
tion's fate  is  made  in  the  opening  lines  of  the 
Epilogue  to  the  King  : 

From  Vulgar  Wits  that  haunt  the  Theatre 
Pompey  to  you  appealing  (Royal  Sir) 
Hopes  for  more  Favour,  as  the  Subject  bears 
Better  proportion  to  a  Princes  Ears. 

This  probably  indicates  that  the  success  of  the 
tragedy  had  not  been  extraordinary.  We  have 
a  criticism  of  Pepys  (written  on  June  23, 1666) 
showing  that  he  did  not  like  this  any  more  than 
Mrs.  Philips's  tiresome  Horace,  He  speaks  of 
"  Pompey  the  Grreat,  a  play  translated  from  the 
French  by  several  noble  persons  among  others 
my  Lord  Buckhurst,  that  to  me  is  but  a  meane 
play  and  the  words  and  sense  not  very  extraor- 
dinary."    This  is  not  quite  so  laconic  as  his 


THE   *'PERSONS  OF  HONOUR"  59 

disposing  of  Orinda's  Horace  as  "  a  silly  trag- 
edy," but  its  meaning  is  no  less  plain. 

Mrs.  Philips's  comments  on  the  work  are 
interesting  not  only  because  they  come  from  a 
rival,  but  because  they  are  very  sensible  and 
discriminating.  After  the  purely  formal  recog- 
nition of  what  she  politely  terms  the  superi- 
ority of  the  other  translation,  she  makes  one 
or  two  keen  and  penetrating  criticisms  ^  of  their 
method  of  work  which  deserve  to  be  printed 
in  full.  "I  cannot  but  be  surpriz'd  at  the 
great  Liberty  they  have  taken  in  adding,  omit- 
ting, and  altering  the  Original  as  they  please 
themselves;  This  I  take  to  be  a  Liberty  not 
pardonable  in  Translators  and  unbecoming  the 
Modesty  of  that  attempt.  For  since  the  differ- 
ent ways  of  writing  ought  to  be  observ'd  with 
their  several  Proprieties,  this  way  of  garbling 
is  fitter  for  a  Paraphrase  than  a  Translation. 
What  chiefly  disgusts  me  is  that  the  Sence  most 
commonly  languishes  through  three  or  four 
lines  and  then  ends  in  the  middle  of  the  fifth." 
What  this  conscientious  lady  would  have  said 
of  some  of  the  eighteenth-century  treatment  of 
the  French  tragic  poets  is  unimaginable. 

1  September  17,  1663. 


60       CORNEILLE   AND   RACINE   IN  ENGLAND 

In  an  undated  letter  ^  she  speaks  with  rather 
more  severity  than  is  warranted.  "...  in  the 
second  and  fourth  Acts  (which  are  all  I  have) 
unless  the  Parts  acted  were  much  reformed  from 
this  Copy,  there  are  as  many  Faults  as  ever  I 
saw  in  a  good  Poem.  .  .  .  the  Rule  that  I 
understood  of  Translations  till  these  Gentle- 
men informed  me  better  was  to  write  Cor- 
neille's  sense  as  it  is  to  be  suppos'd  Corneille 
would  have  done,  if  he  had  been  Englishman, 
not  confined  to  his  Lines  nor  his  Numbers  (un- 
less we  can  do  it  happily)  but  always  to  his 
Meaning."  That  Mrs.  Philips  was  not  only 
exacting  of  others  but  of  herself  is  shown  by 
an  extract  from  a  letter  of  December  11,  1662, 
where  she  refers  to  Poliarchus's  criticism  of  her 
use  of  "effort."  "I  had  it  once  in  my  mind  to 
tell  you  that  I  was  loth  to  use  the  Word  Effort 
but  not  having  Language  enough  to  find  any 
other  Rtyme  without  losing  all  the  Spirit  and 
Force  of  the  next  Line  and  knowing  that  it  has 
been  naturalized  at  least  these  twelve  years  ; 
beside  that  it  was  not  us'd  in  that  place  in  the 
French  I  ventur'd  to  let  it  pass."  Naturally  a 
translator  who  sets  such  a  severe  standard  for 

"^  Letters  from  Orinda  to  Foliarchus,  pp.  81-82. 


THE   ♦* PERSONS  OF  HONOUR"  61 

herself  may  be  expected  to  find  many  faults  in 
the  loose  and  easy  work  of  the  somewhat  self- 
satisfied  poets  constituting  the  Persons  of  Hon- 
our. To  Mrs.  Philips  the  translations  of  PompSe 
and  Horace  were  the  great  literary  events  of  her 
life;  no  exertion  to  make  them  perfect  was  too 
strenuous.  Waller,  Sedley,  and  Sackville  re- 
garded their  work  as  an  incident  only,  and 
were  not  disposed  to  trouble  themselves  too 
much  over  the  details.  They  give  a  picture  of 
their  own  attitude  in  the  Epilogue  to  the  King : 

They  that  translated  this  but  practise  now 

To  improve  their  Muse  and  make  her  worthy  you ; 

That  she  may  hereafter  adorn  the  Stage 

With  your  own  story. 

This  frame  of  mind  can  be  divined  before  the 
translation  itself  is  approached,  and  it  is  at  once 
noticeable  on  opening  the  book  at  random. 

To  one  who  did  not  know  the  French,  one 
tragedy  would,  perhaps,  read  as  well  as  the  other; 
but  one  who  is  looking  for  a  reproduction  of 
Corneille  could  not  fail  to  find  more  satisfaction 
in  Mrs.  Philips's  version.  No  better  illustration 
of  the  difference  between  the  two  can  be  given 
than  their  treatment   of  the  passage   already 


62       CORNEILLE  AND   RACINE   IN  ENGLAND 

quoted  in  the  discussion  of  Mrs.  Philips's  Pom- 
pey  (p.  43). 

The  rendering  of  the  Persons  of  Honour  is  as 
follows  : 

Expect  not  that  their  Rage  should  make  me  bow 
To  call  you  Lord,  that  Homage  is  below- 
Young  Crassus,  Pompey's  Widdow,  Scipio's  Blood, 
And  what's  yet  more  a  Roman  born,  how  should 
I  stoop  to  that  who  am  so  much  above 
The  power  of  Fortune  in  my  Birth  and  Love  ? 
For  Life,  'tis  that  I  Blush  to  own,  that  I 
Could  stay  behind  when  I  saw  Pompey  dye ; 
Though  Pity  with  rude  Force  impos'd  restraint 
From  Steel  or  Waves,  it  is  my  shame  to  want 
Those  borrowed  helps  for  loss  of  such  a  Friend, 
Excess  of  Grief  should  Lingering  Torments  end. 

Mrs.  Philips's  version  (g.v.)  is  in  this  passage, 
as  most  places,  incomparably  better. 

Young  Crassus,  Pompey's  Widdow,  Scipio's  Blood 
And  what's  yet  more  a  Roman  born,  how  should   .... 

is  not  only  a  much  less  intelligible  translation 
of  the  original  than  that  of  the  "Matchless 
Orinda,"  but  it  misses  entirely  the  force  of  the 
brief,  emphatic  Romaine  of  Corneille,  placed 
at  the  beginning  of  the  line.  Mrs.  Philips's 
scrupulous  care  results  in  the  reproduction  of 
rhetorical  devices  of  this  sort  which  add  very 


THE  "PERSONS  OF  HONOUR"       63 

greatly  to  the  value  of  her  translation.  The 
two  lines  which  follow  this  passage  in  the 
Persons  of  Honour  translation  are  padding  pure 
and  simple,  there  being  no  foundation  for  them 
in  the  text.  The  entire  force  of  the  line  trans- 
lated "  Excess  of  Grief  should  lingering  torments 
end  "  is  lost  by  its  conversion  to  a  general  state- 
ment. The  careless  translators  have  been  blind 
to  the  beauty  of  pitiS  cruelle  so  faithfully  re- 
produced by  Mrs.  Philips,  and  have  turned  it 
into  commonplace  with  "Though  Pity  with 
rude  Force  impos'd  restraint  ..."  The  same 
characteristics  of  inexact  and  careless  rendering 
of  passages  which  should  have  received  the 
most  anxious  attention  are  to  be  found  through- 
out this  translation. 

On  analysis,  many  of  the  criticisms  rising  to 
one's  mind  in  the  treatment  of  this  transla- 
tion are  found  to  come  from  a  comparison  with 
Mrs.  Philips's.  In  other  words,  if  she  had  not 
written,  this  work  would  assume  a  much  higher 
rank.  Its  smooth,  flowing  versification  and  the 
easy  mastery  of  form  which  is  shown  at  least 
in  the  first  and  fourth  acts,  make  it  a  most 
agreeable  production.  It  is  a  little  hard  to  be 
sure  of  the  fate  of  this  Pompey  on  the  stage,  as 


64       CORNEILLE  AND   RACINE  IN  ENGLAND 

it  is  sometimes  impossible  to  distinguish  in  the 
scanty  theatrical  records  of  the  time  between 
this  and  Mrs.  Philips's.  But  it  seems  probable 
that  it  soon  disappeared  from  the  theatre  and 
took  its  place  in  libraries  as  a  book-play. 

A  translator,  who,  although  producing  an 
English  version  of  Corneille  during  the  Res- 
toration, really  belongs  to  an  earlier  period,  is 
Lodowick  Carlell,  an  old  follower  of  Charles  I. 
Dibdin^  speaks  of  him  as  "Carlell,  who,  that 
he  might  resemble  most  of  the  favorites  of 
Charles,  was  a  complete  courtier  and  an  indif- 
ferent writer."  Later  he  disposes  of  the  trag- 
edy under  consideration  by  saying,  "  Heraclitus 
was  a  translation  from  Corneille."  The  real 
title  reads,  Heraclius^  Emperour  of  the  East.  A 
Tragedy  written  in  French  hy  Monsieur  de  Cor- 
neille Englished  hy  Lodowick  Carlell  Esq.  (Lon- 
don, 1664.)  In  his  preface,  which  he  calls  "  The 
Author's  Advertisement,"  he  makes  a  most  con- 
fused and  confusing  statement  in  regard  to  the 
way  in  which  his  tragedy  was  treated:  "An- 
other Translation  formerly  design'd  (after  this 
seem'd  to  be  accepted  of)  was  perfected  and 
acted,  this,  not  returned  to  me  until  that  very 

1  History  of  the  English  Stage^  Vol.  IV.  p.  129. 


THE    "PERSONS  OF   HONOUR"  66 

day.'*  It  would  be  difficult  to  understand  ex- 
actly what  he  meant  by  this  without  any  fur- 
ther complication^  but  there  is  another  element 
of  confusion  introduced  by  the  fact  that  there 
has  been  preserved  no  trace  of  any  other  trans- 
lation of  Heraclius.  At  least,  if  there  was  an- 
other it  was  never  printed  ;  and  this  would 
seem  improbable,  as  we  have  several  notes  of 
Pepys  bearing  testimony  to  the  undoubted  suc- 
cess of  some  Heraclius  acted  at  about  this  time. 
On  the  8th  of  March,  1664,  he  writes:  "The 
play  hath  one  very  good  passage  well  managed 
in  it  about  two  persons  pretending  and  yet  de- 
nying themselves,  to  be  son  to  the  tyrant  Pho- 
cias,  and  yet  heir  of  Maronicius  to  the  crowne. 
The  garments  like  Romans  very  well.  .  .  . 
But  at  the  beginning,  at  the  drawing  up  of 
the  curtain,  there  was  the  finest  scene  of  the 
Emperor  and  his  people  about  him,  standing 
in  their  fixed  and  different  postures  in  their 
Roman  habits,  above  all  that  I  ever  saw  at 
any  of  the  theatres."  Three  years  later  (Sep- 
tember 4,  1666)  he  writes,  "Soon  as  dined 
my  wife  and  I  out  to  the  Duke's  Playhouse 
and  there  saw  Heraclius^  an  excellent  play, 
to    my   extraordinary   content,    and   the   more 


66       CORNEILLE  AND  RACINE  IN  ENGLAND 

from  the  house  being  very  full  and  great  com- 
pany." He  speaks  again  of  seeing  it  for  the 
third  time.  There  seems  to  be  little  doubt 
that  an  English  Heraclius,  whether  it  was  Car- 
lell's  or  not,  had  a  success  in  London  that  seems 
out  of  proportion  to  the  welcome  given  in  gen- 
eral to  translated  French  tragedy.  It  may  be 
that  the  involved  and  complicated  plot,  which 
is  usually  considered  a  blemish  in  this  work  of 
Corneille's,  appealed  to  an  audience  which  found 
the  simpler  and  more  classic  tragedy  "  silly,"  as 
Pepys  called  Horace.  Probably  also  the  play 
was  elaborately  staged,  and  every  use  made  of 
the  opportunity  for  attractive  costumes.  What 
is  curious  about  the  popularity  of  this  tragedy 
(if  this  was  indeed  not  Carlell's)  is  that  it  should 
have  been  kept  always  in  manuscript,  when  the 
sorriest  attempts  at  reproduction  of  French 
masterpieces  received  the  recognition  of  the 
press.  There  could  scarcely  be  a  translation 
made  which  would  not  be  as  good  as  Carlell's. 
It  is  possible,  however,  that  he  insisted  upon  the 
publication  of  his  effort  out  of  pique  at  its 
refusal  by  the  stage-manager.  It  was  evidently 
a  complete  surprise  to  him,  for  he  had  gone  so 
far  as  to  prepare  a  prologue  which  he  publishes 


THE   "PERSONS  OF  HONOUR"  67 

at  the  head  of  his  play.  This  is  written  with 
the  same  incoherence  which  characterizes  the 
preface,  but  is  interesting  because,  after  the 
manner  of  prologues,  it  throws  some  light  on 
the  dramatic  fashions  of  the  time.  There  is  a 
contemptuous  reference  to  the  sort  of  foolery 
between  the  acts  of  serious  French  tragedy 
which  Pepys  found  so  diverting: 

A  Song,  a  Dance ;  nay  if  an  Ape  were  shown 

You'd  cast  your  Caps  but  lest  you  them  should  loose 

Some  in  good  husbandry  their  hands  mis-use. 

This  bold  digression  thrust  in  by  the  Way, 

Too  oft  the  By  exceeds  the  Main ;  the  Play. 

What's  French  you  like,  if  vain,  exceed  their  height ; 

What's  solid,  Worthy,  too  few  imitate ; 

But  we  have  those,  when  they  Things  serious  write 

May  give  them  Patterns,  You,  more  just  delight. 

Some  idea  is  conveyed  to  the  reader  by  a 
hasty  perusal  of  these  lines,  but  any  attempt  at 
an  analysis  to  discover  what  Carlell  really 
wished  to  say  is  fatal,  involving  one  at  once 
in  obscurity. 

On  taking  up  the  translation  itself,  it  seems 
probable  that  much  of  the  confusion  in  these 
original  expressions  of  Carlell's  existed  in  his 
own  mind  and  not  in  his  use  of  language. 
For,  with  a  few  exceptions,  the  rhyming  coup- 


68       CORNEILLE  AND  RACINE  IN  ENGLAND 

lets  into  which  he  translated  Heraclius  are  en- 
tirely intelligible.  With  that,  however,  the 
most  favorable  word  is  said.  The  verse  is 
prosaic  to  the  last  degree,  though  not  absurd 
or  trivial ;  quite  without  fire  but  comparatively- 
free  from  inversions  and  obscurities.  It  is 
written  by  rule  of  thumb  as  far  as  confining 
the  sentences  to  single  couplets  is  concerned. 
Carlell  never  allows  himself  the  slightest  flexi- 
bility in  this  regard.  Every  line  is  complete 
and  every  couplet  ends  a  sentence,  with  a  re- 
sulting effect  of  dryness  and  jerkiness  quite 
remarkable.  Faithful  his  translation  is  in  the 
most  literal  meaning  of  the  word,  as  an  extract 
like  this  will  show  (Act  III.  Scene  3) : 

Phocas.   Et  toi  n'espere  pas  desormais  me  fl^chir. 
Je  tiens  Heraclius,  et  je  n'ai  plus  k  craindre, 
Plus  lieu  de  te  flatter,  plus  lieu  de  me  contraindre, 
Ce  frere  et  ton  espoir  vont  entrer  au  cercueil, 
Et  j'abattrai  d'un  coup  sa  tete  et  ton  orgueil. 
Mais  ne  te  con  trains  point  dans  ces  rudes  alarmes : 
Laisse  aller  tes  soupirs,  laisse  couler  tes  larmes. 

Pulcherie.   Moi,  pleurer!  moi,  gemir,  tyran!    J'aurais 
pleure 
Si  quelques  lachetes  I'avaient  d^shonord. 

Here  come  several  lines  which  Carlell  has 
omitted : 


THE   "PERSONS  OF  HONOUR"  69 

Et  dans  ce  grand  revers  je  I'ai  vu  haute  ment 
Digne  d'etre  mon  f  rere,  et  d'etre  mon  amant. 

PJiocas.  Nor  canst  thou  hope,  fond  fool  to  alter  me 
Havhig  thy  Brother,  there's  no  fear  of  thee. 
No  more  constrain  myself,  for  thy  love  plead, 
One  stroke  abates  thy  Pride,  takes  off  his  head. 
Do  not  restrain  thyself,  come,  vent  thy  Gall 
No  words  to  ease  thy  heart,  then  tears  must  fall. 

Pulcheria.    I  grieve,  I  weep,  I  well  might  so  have  done 
Had  he  appeared  less  than  our  Father's  Son ; 
I  am  so  pleased  with  that  he  did  do 
That  though  his  Sister,  I'm  his  Lover  too. 

Genest's  usual  laconic  criticism  of  French 
tragedy  for  once  seems  entirely  just  when  he 
says,  with  impressive  briefness,^  "  Carlell's 
translation  is  not  a  good  one."  The  effort  of 
the  old  courtier  needs  no  more  comment. 

1  Some  Account,  Vol.  X.  p.  138. 


V.    COMEDIES 

There  were  several  translations  from  Thomas 
Corneille  made  during  the  Restoration,  but 
there  is  no  special  interest  attaching  to  any  of 
them ;  not  only  because  they  are  so  adapted  and 
changed  as  scarcely  to  be  recognizable,  but  be- 
cause they  are,  in  every  instance,  comedies,  and 
so  do  not  belong  to  the  company  of  translated 
tragedy  which  makes  this  period  so  notable  to 
the  student  of  Racine  and  Corneille  in  England. 
The  first  presentation  of  Thomas  Corneille  in 
England  of  the  Restoration,  was  a  translation 
of  his  I! Amour  a  la  mode,  published  in  1665, 
under  title  of  The  Amorous  Orontus  or  The  Love 
in  Fashion,  and  reprinted  in  1675  with  the  name 
of  The  Amorous  Grallant.  It  seems  to  have 
been  printed  before  it  was  acted,  as  there  is  no 
indication  on  the  title-page  of  the  first  edition 
of  its  having  been  performed,  while  on  the 
first  page  of  the  second  edition  there  is,  A 
Oomedie  in  heroick  verse,  as  it  was  acted.  This 
is  the  only  evidence  that  it  ever  appeared  on 
70 


COMEDIES  71 

the  stage,  and  Genest  evidently  did  not  think 
it  conclusive,  for  he  treats  this  work  under 
Plays  not  Acted. ^ 

The  comedy  is  a  very  close  translation 
(although  printed  without  any  acknowledg- 
ment to  Corneille),  which  reproduces  in  familiar, 
careless  verse  not  only  the  text  of  the  original 
but  considerable  of  the  atmosphere.  The 
original  comedy  is  no  masterpiece,  but  has  the 
brisk  and  crisp  movement  common  to  French 
comedy  of  the  time.  Although  it  possesses  no 
purely  literary  merit,  the  English  version,  in 
spite  of  awkwardness  and  occasional  obscurities, 
has  a  certain  liveliness  and  bustle  which  must 
have  made  it  pass  on  the  stage  with  some 
degree  of  success.  The  play  was  published 
anonymously,  but  is  quite  universally  attrib- 
uted to  John  Bulteel,  son  of  a  French  Protes- 
tant living  in  Dover. 

The  other  one  of  the  two  comedies  of  Thomas 
Corneille  which  were  translated  during  the 
Restoration  is  Le  Feint  Astrologue.  This  was 
adapted  twice  for  the  English  stage,  once  by  an 
unknown  translator,  and  once  by  no  less  a  per- 
sonage than  John  Dryden.     The  first  version  is 

1  Some  Account,  Vol.  X.  p.  140. 


72       CORNEILLE  AND  RACINE  IN  ENGLAND 

contained  in  a  quarto  volume  in  the  British 
Museum,  called,  in  the  catalogue.  The  Feigned 
Astrologer.  That  copy  is  an  imperfect  one, 
the  title-page  having  been  torn  away;  but  Kirk- 
man's  list,^  which  was  published  in  1671,  gives 
the  date  of  this  comedy  as  1668.  Genest  gives 
the  date  of  the  performance  as  1668,  and  the 
first  edition  1671.  In  the  British  Museum  copy 
there  is  a  manuscript  note,  apparently  very  old, 
which  ascribes  this  work  to  John  Dry  den ;  but 
this  is  erroneous,  as  Dryden's  adaptation  is 
quite  a  different  affair. 

With  the  loss  of  the  title-page  has  gone  the 
list  of  Dramatis  Personce,  and  it  is  a  little 
difficult  to  reestablish  this  as  the  names  are 
completely  changed  or  Anglicized,  and  there 
are  several  additions.  Don  Fernand  is  called 
Fndimion  in  the  English  piece,  Lucre ce^  Clar- 
inda;  Don  Juan^  Bellamy;  Jacinte^  Fannie^  and 
so  on.  This  is  the  first  real  adaptation  as  dis- 
tinguished from  a  translation  which  is  found 
among  the  works  forming  the  subject  of  this 
study.  The  scenes  are  shifted  about  and  sup- 
pressed in  a  way  quite  new  among  the  transla- 
tors of  Corneille  up  to  that  time. 

1  Published  after  Dancer's  Nicomede,  cf.  Bibliography. 


COMEDIES  73 

One  of  the  most  amusing  scenes  is,  however, 
lifted  almost  bodily ;  and  in  spite  of  the  absurd 
mixture  of  prose  and  rhyme  and  blank  verse, 
has  preserved  some  of  the  vivacity  of  the  orig- 
inal. It  is  the  scene  after  the  two  girls  have 
secured  from  the  Astrologer  the  promise  to  send 
them  the  astral  body  of  Bellamy^  who  is  sup- 
posed to  be  far  away.  Unknown  to  them  he 
is  at  hand,  and,  by  a  misunderstanding,  walks 
in  on  them  in  flesh  and  blood.  Luce,  Celia's 
servant,  goes  to  the  door,  shrieks,  and  exclaims, 

Oh,  Madam,  Madam,  'tis  he  1  *tis  Bellamy  1 
But  that  he's  twice  as  tall  as  he  was  wont  to  be. 

(Drops  candle  out  of  her  hand  and  runs  away.^ 
Celia.   Fannie,  Ay  me  !  Ay  me  ! 
Bellamy.   What  means  this  shreeking  and  this  running 

about  ? 
Celia.  JSTow  am  I  well  paid  for  my  curiosity  I  have 
my  wish  and  it  proves  my  undoing,  'tis  Bellamy's 
voice,  but  I  han't  the  power  to  answer  him. 
Fannie  {from  under  the  table  where  she  had  hid  herself), 
I'm  nothing  mistaken  in  myself 
I  knew  I  should  be  afraid  and  my  Cozen 
For  all  her  cracking  proves  as  very  a  Coward. 
Ma  *  *  *  ¥fi  *  * 

If  the  Thing  should  find  me  under  the  table  now 
I'le  pray  hard.^ 

^Jacinte.   Ah  Madame,  ah  Madame, 
C'est  lui-mgme,  sinon  qu'il  est  beaucoup  plus  grand. 


74       CORNEILLE  AND  RACINE  IN  ENGLAND 

The  situation  is  so  farcical  that  treated  in 
almost  any  manner  it  could  scarcely  fail  to  be 
ludicrous.  The  translator  has  shown  some  in- 
telligence in  keeping  reasonably  close  to  his 
text  in  the  best  scenes,  but  this  is  the  most 
favorable  word  that  can  be  said  of  him.  That 
he  has  no  idea  of  fidelity  is  apparent  from  a 
selection  like  this,  and  it  is  equally  clear  that 
he  has  no  literary  merit  of  his  own. 

The  other  translation  of  Le  Feint  Astrologue, 
done  by  John  Dryden  under  the  title  of  An 
Evening^s  Love  or  the  Mode  Astrologer  (pub- 
lished in  1671),  is  headed  with  an  ostentatiously 
frank  preface  in  which  the  author  sets  forth  his 
sources  clearly,  in  answer  to  the  charge  of  steal- 
ing the  material  for  his  comedies.  "  This  play 
was  first  Spanish  and  called  JEl  Astrologo  Fin- 
gido,  then  made  French  by  the  younger  Cor- 
neille,  and  is  now  translated  into  English,  and 
in  print  under  the  name  of    The  Feigned  As- 

Leonor.   Ah  Ciel,  ah.  .  .  . 

Don  Juan.   Get  accueil,  Ldonor,  me  surprend. 

Leonor.   Ma  curiosite  ne  sert  qu'  a  me  confondre; 
C'est  sa  voix,  je  I'entends,  mais  je  ne  puis  repondre. 

Jacinte   (cachee).   Que  je   crains    que   ce  spectre,   ou 
plutot  ce  diable, 
Ne  me  vienne  chercher  jusque  sous  cette  table. 


COMEDIES  75 

trologery^  As  the  date  of  the  appearance  of 
his  own  adaptation  is  1671,  it  seems  probable 
that  The  Feigned  Astrologer  was  earlier,  and  this 
is  evidence  in  favor  of  the  date  given  by  Kirk- 
man  as  against  the  authority  of  Genest.  In  the 
large  manuscript  collection  of  material  for  a 
history  of  the  stage  in  the  Newspaper  room  of 
the  British  Museum,  the  editor,  in  his  notes  ^  on 
the  Roscius  Anglicanus,  is  at  a  loss  to  account 
for  the  mention  of  The  Mock  Astrologer  appar- 
ently before  it  was  written.  Downes  QRoscius 
Anglicanus)  gives  it  as  one  of  the  "Principal 
Old  Stock  Plays,"  and  puts  it  twice  in  the  list 
of  "most  taking  plays."  Smith,  the  editor  of 
the  collection  mentioned  above,  puts  a  note  to 
this  effect:  "These  pieces  are  Dryden's  Secret 
Lover  and  An  Evening's  Love  or  the  Mock 
Astrologer,  I  know  not  how  Downes  came 
to  rank  them  with  the  old  Stock  Plays."  It 
seems  not  impossible  that  there  was  a  confusion 
here,  and  that  Downes  is  referring  to  the  anony- 
mous Feigned  Astrologer, 

Dryden's  comedy  itself  is  scarcely  worth  the 
trouble  to  establish  the  date  of  its  first  appear- 

1  Scott  and  Saintsbury  edition  of  Dryden,  Vol.  III.  p.  250. 

2  Vol.  II. 


76       CORNEILLE  AND  RACINE  IN  ENGLAND 

auce,  although  Downes's  testimony  (if  he  does 
refer  to  Dryden's  work)  would  seem  to  show 
that  it  was  one  of  the  successful  plays  of  the 
time.  Saintsbury  quotes  a  number  of  adverse 
criticisms  from  contemporaries,  among  others 
a  statement  of  Pepys  that  Herringman,  the 
publisher,  told  him  that  Dryden  himself  thought 
it  but  a  fifth-rate  play.  Scott,  on  the  other 
hand,  in  his  editor's  note  before  this  comedy, 
has  a  good  word  to  say  for  it :  "  The  play  is 
more  lively  than  most  of  Dryden's  comedies. 
Wildblood  and  Jacintha  are  far  more  pleasant 
than  their  prototypes  Celadon  and  Florimel ; 
and  the  Spanish  bustle  of  the  plot  is  well  cal- 
culated to  keep  up  the  attention."  ^ 

The  mixture  of  bastard  blank  verse  and 
prose  used  by  Dryden  makes  this  comedy  on 
casual  examination  look  very  much  like  the 
crude  Feigned  Astrologer,  It  is  better  than  it 
seems,  however,  and  is  greatly  in  advance  of 
the  anonymous  translation.  Little  credit  for 
this  can  be  given  to  Corneille,  for  Dryden  has 
not  used  much  of  his  play,  and  what  he  has 
taken  he  has  so  coarsened  and  changed  that  it 
is  hard  to  recognize  the  original.     Scott  points 

1  Scott  and  Saintsbury  edition  of  Dryden,  Vol.  III.  p.  237. 


COMEDIES  77 

out  that  Dryden  has  imitated  Moliere's  Le 
Depit  Amoureux  in  several  scenes,  and  that  there 
is  much  that  is  his  own  invention.  The  work  is 
chiefly  interesting  as  showing  how  freely  trans- 
lations were  made  (two  from  this  indifferent 
comedy),  and  as  linking  Dryden's  great  name 
with  the  translators  of  Racine  and  Corneille. 

Corneille's  most  successful  comedy,  and  the 
one  usually  considered  to  be  the  best  on  the 
French  stage  before  Moliere,  fared  rather  badly 
in  England.  Le  Menteur  received  more  than 
its  share  of  attention  as  it  was  translated  three 
times,  but  it  had  not  the  good  fortune  to  fall 
into  the  hands  of  a  translator  who  could  make 
its  merits  appear  in  English. 

The  first  translation,  published  under  the 
name  of  The  Mistaken  Beauty^  was  a  most 
lamentable  affair,  printed  in  a  strange  mixture 
of  bastard  blank  verse  and  prose,  apparently  a 
hastily  written  production  intended  for  practi- 
cal use  by  actors  only.  At  best,  there  is  no 
literary  merit  in  it.  The  date  of  the  first 
edition  is  difficult  to  ascertain.  The  copy  in 
the  British  Museum  is  dated  1685,  but  Genest 
observes,^  "  We  are  certain  it  was  acted  before 

1  8ome  Account,  Vol.  I.  p.  34. 


78       CORNEILLE  AND  RACINE  IN  ENGLAND 

1667,  as  Dryden  in  his  Essay  greatly  commends 
Hart  for  his  performance  of  Dorante,^'  (The 
reference  is  of  course  to  the  JEssay  of  Dramatic 
Poetry.)  Mulert  hazards  an  interesting  conjec- 
ture which  seems  not  improbable,  that  as  Hart 
was  acting  manager  in  the  King's  company  at 
this  time,  and  as  the  epilogue  and  prologue 
speak  entirely  from  the  actor's  standpoint,  it 
is  possible  that  Le  Menteur  was  translated  for 
the  actors  alone  and  perhaps  played  some 
years  before  it  was  printed.  Dryden  makes 
several  references  to  it,  including  one  quoted 
by  Mulert  which  is  very  favorable,  stating  that 
The  Lyar  appeared  in  English  "to  so  much 
advantage  as  I  am  confident  it  never  received 
in  its  own  country."  A  strange  statement  to 
make  of  so  very  crude  a  production,  whose 
average  of  style  is  shown  by  the  following  ex- 
tract (Act  I.  Scene  2) : 

...  it  is  the  intention  sets 
Value  on  the  Act  and  a  kind  of  undervaluing  things 
To  do  them  or  without  it,  the  favour  then  is  but  small, 
To  give  me  y'r  hand,  'less  you  give  me  your  Heart  withal  1 ; 
And  judge  how  little  nourishment  that  fire  receives, 
That  amorous  fire  inkindled  in  my  brest. 
By  giving  me  your  hand  and  denying  me  the  rest. 

Clarissa.  That  fire  you  speak  of  sir 's  so  new  to  me  as 


COMEDIES  79 

now  I  only  see  the  fire  sparks  of  it ;  and  though  your  heart 
perhaps  may  burn,  yet  know,  Sir,  mine  requires  a  longer 
time ;  but  now  I  see  your  flame,  mine  perhaps  may  burn 
hereafter  by  simpathy;  mean  time  you  can't  in  justice 
blame  me  not  to  know  what  I  was  wholly  ignorant  of  till 
now. 

Dryden's  favorable  judgment  and  the  fact 
that  The  Mistaken  Beauty  was  successful  enough 
to  attain  a  second  edition,  suggest  the  idea  that 
perhaps  the  play,  as  we  have  it  now,  is  a  victim 
of  the  careless  printing  of  those  times  carried 
even  farther  than  it  usually  was.  This  may 
have  been  a  pirated  edition,  or  what  corre- 
sponded to  that  in  the  seventeenth-century 
literary  world.  In  its  present  form  there  is  no 
trace  of  the  polished  metres  of  the  original  and 
very  little  of  the  sparkling  humor  which  made 
Le  Menteur  so  favorite  a  comedy  in  France. 


VI.    THE  LAST  OF  THE  RESTORATION 

Cor]n:eille's  Horace  makes  in  one  respect  the 
best  showing  in  England  of  any  of  the  French 
tragedies  under  consideration.  There  are  four 
translations  made  of  it,  three  by  excellent 
authors.  The  first  was  by  Lower,  Mrs. 
Philips  was  the  author  of  one,  and  William 
Whitehead,  a  poet  laureate  of  the  eighteenth 
century,  wrote  the  last.  Charles  Cotton,  the 
well-known  translator  of  Montaigne's  Essays, 
and  a  contemporary  of  Mrs.  Philips,  was  one  of 
this  company  of  poets.  In  1665,  two  years 
before  Mrs.  Philips  wrote  her  version,  he  had 
translated  Horace  for  his  sister,  so  he  tells  us  in 
the  dedication  dated  "  Beresf ord,  November  7th, 
1665."  He  did  not  intend  to  publish  it  at  first, 
and  was  only  persuaded  to  do  so  in  1671,  al- 
though then  Mrs.  Philips's  had  appeared  and  met 
with  a  warm  welcome.  He  apparently  thought 
there  would  be  no  competition  between  the 
two,  as  he  meant  his  work  to  be  merely  a  book- 
play.  It  is,  in  fact,  one  of  the  few  translations 
80 


THE  LAST  OF  THE  RESTORATION  81 

made  at  this  time  which  was  never  presented. 
Genest  treats  it  naturally  under  Plays  Printed 
hut  not  Acted;  and,  perhaps  because  it  made  no 
pretence  of  being  fit  for  the  stage,  he  omits 
his  usual  fling  at  the  dulness  of  French 
tragedy.  He  says  briefly,  "  It  seems  to  be  a 
good  translation,"  which  indeed  it  surely  is. 
In  some  respects  it  is  superior  to  Mrs.  Philips's 
work.  It  is  no  less  exact  and  conscientious  in 
all  essentials  —  Cotton  was  a  famous  French 
scholar  in  his  day  —  and  at  times  it  is  decidedly 
more  vigorous  and  moves  with  a  freer,  bolder 
step  (Act  IV.  Scene  5) : 

Camilla.   Rome  I  that  alone  does  my  affliction  prove. 
Rome  !  to  whom  thou  hast  sacrificed  my  Love. 
Rome  1  that  first  gave  thee  life !  that  perfectly 
I  hate  because  she  does  so  honour  thee  I 
May  all  her  neighbours  in  one  cause  conspire 
To  sack  her  Walls  and  ruine  her  by  Fire 
And  if  all  Italy  appear  too  few 
May  East  and  West  joyn  in  the  mischief  too  1 
Far  as  the  frozen  poles  may  Nations  come 
O're  Hills  and  Seas  to  sack  imperious  Rome  !  ^ 

1  Camille.   Rome,  Tunique  objet  de  mon  ressentiment ! 
Rome,  k  qui  vient  ton  bras  d'immoler  mon  amant  I 
Rome,  qui  t'a  vu  naitre,  et  que  ton  coeur  adore  I 
Rome  enfin  que  je  hais  parcequ'elle  t'honore  : 
Puissent  tons  ses  voisins  ensemble  conjures 


82       CORNEILLE  AND  RACINE  IN  ENGLAND 

Cotton's  rendering  of  this  is  not  only  good 
and  stirring  verse  in  its  own  right,  but  it  is  an 
accurate  reproduction  of  the  movement  of  his 
original  as  well  as  its  words,  and  one  cannot 
read  passages  like  this  without  regretting  that 
this  translation  was  never  declaimed  by  com- 
petent actors. 

Cotton  produces  his  effects  by  broad,  sweep- 
ing lines,  with  a  careless  confidence  in  his  own 
instinctive  and  scholarly  accuracy,  which  is 
quite  different  from  Mrs.  Philips's  anxious 
fidelity.  He  does  not  do  this,  however,  with- 
out paying  the  penalty  of  being  diffuse  at 
times  and  of  using  two  or  three  lines  to  trans- 
late one  of  Corneille's.  (Act  I.  Scene  1.) 
"Et  qu'  a  nos  yeux  Camille  agit  bien  autre- 
ment,"  is  translated  by  Mrs.  Philips,  "  How 
distant  is  Camilla's  way  from  this  ;  "  while  Cot- 
ton runs  off  into  undeniable  padding, 

And  in  this  great  affair  Camilla's  breast 
After  another  manner  is  possest. 

Saper  ses  fondements  encor  mal  assures  ! 

Et,  si  ce  n'est  assez  de  toute  I'ltalie, 

Que  rOrient  contre  elle  a  I'Occident  s'allie  ; 

Que  cent  peuples,  unis  des  bouts  de  I'univers, 

Passent  pour  la  detruire  et  les  monts  et  les  mers  I 


THE  LAST  OF  THE  RESTORATION  83 

There  are  many  such  instances  where,  in  com- 
parison with  Orinda's  never  failing  care,  his 
lack  of  minute  accuracy  forms  an  offset  to  his 
superiority  in  other  respects.  But  these  pas- 
sages are  not  often  important  ones.  These  Cot- 
ton almost  invariably  renders  with  an  apparent 
freedom  which  is  the  highest  form  of  fidelity. 

He  has  followed  Mrs.  Philips  in  putting 
songs  between  the  acts.  These  are  of  his  own 
composition  and  show  no  great  power  of  poetic 
conception.  They  are  lyrics  in  which  he  has 
endeavored  to  use  complicated  verse-forms,  and 
apparently  his  mind  was  not  nimble  enough  to 
enable  him  to  succeed  in  this  form  of  composi- 
tion. They  are  rather  heavy  and  unmusical 
although  correct  enough.  On  the  whole,  this 
translation  of  Horace  seems  to  the  writer  not 
only  the  best  English  version  of  this  tragedy, 
but  one  of  the  best  ever  made  of  a  play  by 
Corneille  or  Racine.  It  is  greatly  to  be  re- 
gretted that  it  was  never  acted,  for  if  it  had 
been  performed  successfully  it  would  have 
assumed  a  most  important  place  in  the  com- 
pany of  translated  tragedy. 

In  1671  Dublin  is  brought  into  prominence 
again  as  the  city  where  another  of  these  great 


84       CORNEILLE  AND  RACINE  IN  ENGLAND 

plays  was  performed  in  English.  In  that  year 
Kirkman  —  the  London  play  publisher  —  put 
out  Nicomede^  a  Tragi- Comedy^  Translated  out 
of  the  French  of  Monsieur  Corneille  hy  John 
Dancer.  As  it  was  acted  at  the  Theatre  Royal 
in  Dublin.  The  printing  license  is  dated 
December  16,  1670,  so  that  it  must  have  been 
acted  during  that  year.  It  is  dedicated  by 
the  publisher  "  in  the  Author's  absence "  to 
Thomas,  Earl  of  Ossory  (son  of  the  Duke  of 
Ormond),  and  the  first  sentence  begins,  "  This 
piece  being  made  English  in  Your  Honour's 
Service  and  by  your  Command,  having  already 
passed  the  Suffrage  of  the  Stage  and  now  made 
more  publique  by  passing  the  Press.  .  .  ." 
Again  the  little  circle  of  grands  seigneurs  at 
Dublin  and  their  interest  in  French  literature 
is  shown  as  a  factor  to  be  reckoned  with  in 
the  treatment  of  the  serious  and  conscientious 
translations  made  at  this  time. 

The  Dictionary  of  National  Biography  has 
very  few  facts  about  the  John  Dancer  who 
translated  Nicomede.  From  various  indications 
it  conjectures  that  he  was  in  the  service  of 
the  Duke  of  Ormond,  while  the  latter  was  Lord 
Lieutenant  of  Ireland,  and  it  seems  certain  that 


THE  LAST  OF  THE   RESTORATION  85 

personally  he  was  very  devoted  to  him.  The 
choice  of  Nicomede  (it  is  evident  from  the 
dedication  that  the  Duke  chose  the  play  to  be 
done  into  English)  shows  the  usual  excellence 
of  taste  of  Dancer's  aristocratic  patron  in  such 
matters.  Moreover,  he  gave  this  last  of  Cor- 
neille's  great  plays  to  a  translator  who,  although 
not  gifted  with  an  extraordinary  amount  of 
poetic  talent,  was  nevertheless  a  moderate  ver- 
sifier and  a  literary  man  of  taste  and  intelli- 
gence. His  production  holds  its  place  bravely 
among  the  excellent  Restoration  translations 
and  has  many  qualities  in  common  with  them. 
In  the  first  place  it  is  conscientious;  there  is 
no  tampering  with  the  text,  no  introduction  of 
songs  and  dances  between  the  acts,  —  an  ex- 
tremely honest  reproduction.  The  lack  of 
inspiration  usually  supposed  to  accompany 
extreme  honesty  is  to  be  noticed,  but  an  ever 
present  good  taste  is  an  agreeable,  if  not  a 
sufficient,  substitute.  The  work  throughout  is 
kept  to  an  even  level  of  smoothness,  there  are 
few  lapses  into  lame  and  halting  lines,  while 
there  are  occasional  stretches  of  writing  which 
are  excellent  in  a  quiet,  unpretentious  way. 
Genest  speaks  of  this  translation  in  his  re- 


86       CORNEILLE  AND  RACINE  IN  ENGLAND 

marks  on  the  stage  in  Ireland :  ^  " .  .  .  the 
translator  should  have  called  his  play  Nico- 
medes,  not  Nichomede  —  in  English  we  follow 
the  Latins  and  not  the  '  chopping  French '  as 
Shakespeare  calls  them.  ...  It  is  not  a  bad 
play,  but  it  has  the  usual  coldness  and  declama- 
tion of  the  French  stage."  The  book  is  so 
poorly  printed  and  the  spelling  is  so  irregular 
that  it  is  doubtful  if  the  author  is  responsible 
for  the  spelling  which  Genest  criticises.  In- 
deed, on  the  title-page  the  name  is  given  as 
Nicomede.  An  extract  which  gives  a  very  fair 
idea  of  the  intelligent  and  uninspired  way  in 
which  Dancer  renders  his  original  is  the  fol- 
lowing from  Act  IV.  Scene  4  : 

Prusias.  .  .  .  to-morrow  from  this  hand 

Atalus  shall  receive  supream  command ; 
I'le  make  him  King  of  Pontus  and  my  heir ; 
And  for  the  Rebel  who  does  so  much  dare 
Rome  shall  be  judge  what  his  affronts  deserve. 
In  Atalus'  stead  he  shall  for  Hostage  serve 
And  to  conduct  him  fit  means  shall  be  found, 
So  soon  as  he  has  seen  his  Brother  crowned. 

Nichomede.  And  will  you  send  me  then  to  Rome  ? 

Prusias.   Yes,  Sir. 
Go  ask  your  dear  Laodice  from  her. 

Nichomede.  I'le  go,  I'le  go,  Sir,  and  shall  there  appear 
A  greater  Monarch  than  you  dare  be  here. 

1  Some  Account,  Vol.  X.  p.  271. 


THE  LAST  OF  THE  RESTORATION  87 

Flaminius.   Rome  on  your  actions  will  true  value  set. 

Nichomede.   Gently,  Flaminius,  we  are  not  there  yet, 
The  journey's  long  and  you  may  be  deceived ; 
Things  well  begun  are  often  ill  atchieved.^ 

This  is  extremely  close  translation  and  yet  has 
the  merit  of  reading  as  though  it  were  sponta- 
neous. The  secret  of  the  Restoration  translators 
in  writing  faithful  and  yet  flowing  translations 
belongs  to  Dancer  as  well  as  to  the  more  gifted 
members  of  the  group. 

The  play  seems  to  have  attained  a  consid- 
erable degree  of  success,  but  there  is  little 
mention  of  it  in  the  theatrical  historians  of  the 

1  Prusias.  .  .  .  et  des  demain  Attale 

Recevra  de  ma  main  la  puissance  royale. 
Je  le  f  ais  roi  de  Pont  et  mon  seul  heritier  ; 
Et  quant  k  ce  rebelle,  k  ce  courage  fier 
Rome  entre  vous  et  lui  jugera  de  I'outrage ; 
Je  veux  qu'au  lieu  d'Attale  il  lui  serve  d'otage  ; 
Et  pour  I'y  niieux  conduire  il  vous  sera  donn^, 
Sitot  qu'il  aura  vu  son  frere  couronne. 

Nicomede.   Vous  m'envoirez  k  Rome ! 

Prusias.  On  t'y  fera  justice. 

Ya,  va  lui  demander  ta  chere  Laodice. 

Nicomede.  J'irai,  j'irai,  Seigneur,  vous  le  voulez  ainsi; 
Et  j'y  serai  plus  roi  que  vous  n'etes  ici. 

Flaminius.   Rome  sait  vos  hauts  f aits  et  dejk  vous  adore. 

Nicomede.  Tout  beau,  Flaminius  !  je  n'y  suis  pas  encore : 
La  route  en  est  mal  sure,  a  tout  considerer, 
Et  qui  m'y  conduira  pourrait  bien  s'egarer. 


88       CORNEILLE  AND  RACINE  IN  ENGLAND 

time,  either   favorable   or    otherwise.     Appar- 
ently a  second  edition  was  never  called  for. 

The  first  translation  from  Racine  is  connected 
with  a  well-known  author  of  the  seventeenth 
century,  but  it  is  a  sorry  performance  viewed 
from  any  standpoint.  It  was  printed  in  1675, 
under  the  auspices  of  John  Crowne,  a  familiar 
figure  of  that  day,  known  as  "  starched  Johnnie." 
The  translation  was  a  very  poor  piece  of  work 
and  was  received  coldly.  Chagrined  by  this, 
Crowne  made  haste  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Reader 
to  disclaim  the  authorship,  and  gives  the  follow- 
ing explanation  of  his  connection  with  the  affair. 
After  the  title-page  [which  reads,  Andromache^ 
a  Tragedy  as  it  is  acted  at  the  Duke's  Theatre 
London^  1675']  he  addresses  himself  to  the 
reader  thus  :  "  This  play  was  translated  by  a 
Young  Gentleman  who  has  a  great  esteem  of 
all  French  Playes,  and  particularly  of  this ; 
and,  thinking  it  a  pity  the  Town  should  lose  so 
excellent  a  Divertisement  for  want  of  a  Trans- 
lation, bestowed  his  pains  upon  it ;  and,  it  hap- 
pening to  be  in  the  long  Vacation,  a  time  when 
the  Playhouses  are  willing  to  catch  at  any  Reed 
to  save  themselves  from  Sinking,  to  do  the 
House  a  Kindness  and  to  serve  the  Gentleman, 


THE  LAST  OF  THE  RESTORATION  89 

who,  it  seem'd  was  desirous  to  see  it  on  the 
Stage,  I  willingly  perused  it  but  found  neither 
the  Play  to  answer  to  Gentleman's  Commenda- 
tion nor  his  Genius  in  Verse  very  fortunate, 
and  yet  neither  of  'em  so  contemptible  as  to  be 
wholly  slighted  ;  but  neither  the  Gentleman 
nor  myself  having  leisure  enough  to  make  those 
Emendations  which  both  the  Play  and  the 
Verse  needed,  I  begged  leave  of  him  to  turn 
it  into  Prose,  which  I  obtained,  and  so  it  is  in 
the  condition  you  see. 

"  It  is  much  esteemed  in  France  and  here, 
too,  by  some  English,  who  are  admirers  of  the 
French  Wit,  and  think  this  suffered  much  in 
the  Translation  ;  I  cannot  tell  in  what,  except 
in  not  bestowing  Verse  upon  it,  which  I  thought 
it  did  not  deserve,  for  otherwise  there  is  all 
that  is  in  the  French  Play,  and  something  more, 
as  may  be  seen  in  the  last  Act,  where  what  is  only 
dully  recited  in  the  French  Play  is  there  repre- 
sented. Had  it  been  acted  in  the  good  well- 
meaning  times  when  the  Cid^  Heraclius^  and 
other  French  Playes  met  such  applause,  this 
would  have  passed  very  well ;  but  since  our 
Audiences  have  tasted  so  plentifully  the  firm 
English  wit,  these  thin  Regalio's  will  not  down. 


90       CORNEILLE  AND  RACINE  IN  ENGLAND 

"  This  I  thought  good  to  say  in  my  own  be- 
half, to  clear  myself  of  the  scandal  of  this  poor 
translation  wherewith  I  was  slandered  in  spite 
of  all  I  could  say  in  private,  in  spite  of  what 
the  Prologue  and  Epilogue  affirmed  on  the 
Stage  in  Public,  that  if  the  Play  met  with 
any  Success  he  might  wholly  take  to  himself  a 
Reputation  of  which  I  was  not  in  the  least 
ambitious." 

This  preface  is  the  most  interesting  part  of 
the  production,  as  it  is  full  of  side-lights  on  the 
way  in  which  people  of  Crowne's  standing 
regarded  the  great  French  dramatists,  and  is, 
moreover,  an  amusingly  precise  delineation  of 
some  of  Crowne's  personal  characteristics. 

As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  translation  is  an 
astonishingly  bad  one.  Racine's  melodious  and 
flowing  lines  are  rendered  in  the  baldest  and 
barest  of  prose  translations,  quite  without  grace 
of  any  sort.  There  are  sudden  lapses  into 
pseudo-verse  (as  though  Crowne  had  not  even 
taken  the  trouble  to  break  up  the  original 
rhythm),  and  as  sudden  returns  to  prose  with 
perfect  inconsequentiality. 

In  Act  IV.  Scene  3,  about  the  middle  of  the 
scene,  there  is  an  abrupt  fall  into  verse  : 


THE  LAST  OF  THE  RESTORATION  91 

Hermione.   On,  now  or  never  —  who  delays  desires. 
Run  to  the  Temple  now  and  Sacrifice 

Orestes.   Whom? 

Hermione.   Pyrrhus. 

Orestes.  Pyrrhus,  Madame. 

Hermione.   What !  does  your  Hate  languish  ?  run 
And  do  not  fear.    I  shall  recall  you,  regard  not  you  the 

right  which  I  forget  — 
I  have  resolved  revenge  and  he  shall  dye. 
'Tis  not  for  you  his  deeds  to  justify.^ 

The  last  act,  as  Crowne  says,  shows  in  action 
on  the  stage  what  is  related  in  the  original. 
This  is  the  entering  wedge  for  such  modifica- 
tion, which  from  this  time  on  becomes  more 
and  more  pronounced. 

There  has  been  an  attempt  to  make  a  spec- 
tacular scene  with  a  solemn  procession  of 
Greeks,  priests,  and  attendants.  Choruses  and 
songs  occupy  much  of  the  time.     Pyrrhus  is 

1  Hermione.  Tons  vos  retardements  sont  pour  moi  des 
refus. 
Courez  au  temple.    II  faut  immoler.  .  .  . 

Oreste.  Qui  ? 

Hermione.  Pyrrhus. 

Oreste.     Pyrrhus,  Madame. 

Hermione.   He  quel  ?  votre  haine  chancelle  ? 
Ah  !  courez  et  craignez  que  je  ne  vous  rappelle. 
N'all§guez  point  des  droits  que  je  veux  oublier ; 
Et  ce  n'est  pas  h.  vous  a  le  justifier. 


92       CORNEILLE  AND  RACINE  IN  ENGLAND 

killed  in  sight  of  the  audience,  and  his  body  is 
dragged  out  of  the  temple  by  the  Greeks. 

The  superlative  degree  of  badness  which  is 
attained  at  the  beginning  of  this  translation  is 
kept  up  throughout,  and  after  reading  it  one 
is  not  surprised  at  Crowne's  hangdog  explana- 
tion at  the  beginning.  It  is  an  interesting 
coincidence  that  Andromaque^  which  was  to  be 
so  completely  successful  in  another  version, 
should  have  failed  so  disastrously  in  this. 

The  greatest  name  in  the  list  of  translators  of 
classic  French  tragedy  is  that  of  Thomas  Otway, 
and  there  is  a  singular  felicity  in  the  choice 
which  he  made.  None  of  Corneille's  plays 
could  have  been  so  suitable  for  his  talents  as 
one  of  Racine's,  and  none  of  Racine's  so  entirely 
after  his  own  heart  as  BerSnice^  which  he  made 
the  foundation  of  a  tragedy  published  in  1677 
with  the  title  of  Titus  and  Berenice,  The 
moving  and  pathetic  situation  is  one  which  he 
might  have  invented,  and  he  made  brilliant  use 
of  it  in  his  adapted  tragedy.  His  success  is 
the  more  notable  because  he  was  only  twenty- 
six  years  old  at  the  time  he  produced  this  work. 
Considered  as  a  translation  the  English  tragedy 
is  a  paradox,  for  it  is  freer  than  Mrs.  Philips's 


THE  LAST  OF  THE   RESTORATION  93 

work,  and  even  takes  more  liberties  than  the 
Peraons  of  Honour ;  but,  as  a  whole,  it  is  a  faith- 
ful rendition  of  the  French,  and  in  many  pas- 
sages reproduces  to  an  astonishing  degree  the 
exact  atmosphere  of  the  original,  even  while 
departing  in  many  ways  from  it. 

From  some  points  of  view,  this  is  the  most 
interesting  of  all  the  translations  made  from  the 
tragedies  of  Racine  and  Corneille.  The  com- 
parison between  Otway's  tragedy  and  Racine's 
is  extremely  enlightening  as  to  the  difference 
between  the  taste  of  the  two  nations  at  that 
time.  For  although  Ot way's  version  was  no 
"mere  paraphrase"  (as  Mrs.  Philips  would 
have  said),  every  line  which  he  took  from  the 
French  he  made  completely  English ;  and  not 
only  English  but  Restoration  English.  It  is 
evident  at  every  step  that  he  was  a  writer  of 
tragedy,  as  well  as  a  translator,  and  he  did, 
unconsciously  and  successfully,  what  eighteenth- 
century  translators  consciously  and  unsuccess- 
fully tried  to  accomplish,  i.e,  to  make  an 
English  tragedy  out  of  a  French  one,  not 
simply  to  present  an  English  version. 

Every  speech  of  Otway's  is  based  to  a  greater 
or  less  degree  on  the  French,  and  many  of  them 


94       CORNEILLE  AND  RACINE  IN  ENGLAND 

are  translated  line  for  line ;  nevertheless,  there 
is  not  a  passage  which  is  not  English.  The 
severe  simplicity  of  Racine's  diction  is  often 
replaced  by  what  would  be  bombast  if  any  one 
but  Otway  had  written  it ;  on  the  other  hand, 
there  are  passages  where  an  unaffected  and 
poignant  pathos  appears,  entirely  English  and 
different  from  the  tristesse  majestueuse^  which 
Racine  calls  the  characteristic  quality  of  classic 
tragedy.  In  short,  it  is  an  English  tragedy  of 
the  time  of  Charles  II.  which  is  under  discus- 
sion, with  all  the  faults  and  merits  of  its  time. 

Dibdin  (Vol.  IV.  p.  103)  has  a  curious  com- 
ment on  this  tragedy.  Referring  to  the  roman- 
tic story  of  the  unhappy  love  of  Henrietta  of 
England  for  Louis  XIV.  and  to  her  request  for 
a  tragedy  written  about  the  story  of  Titus  and 
Berenice,  which  she  considered  similar  to  her 
own,  Dibdin  says,  "  Plays  written  on  particular 
occasions  seldom  succeed  beyond  the  moment. 
Otway,  therefore,  was  unfortunate  in  his  choice, 
and  although  he  wisely  turned  to  Corneille  more 
than  to  Racine,  his  success  did  not  warrant  the 
trouble  he  took  to  obtain  it." 

It  is  singular  that  any  one  should  think  it  a 
merit  to  copy  Corneille  rather  than  Racine  in 


THE  LAST  OF  THE  RESTORATION  95 

this  instance ;  and  it  is  quite  inexplicable  that 
Dibdin  should  have  made  the  statement  that 
Otway  did  so,  for  there  seems  to  the  writer 
no  single  instance  where  this  is  true.  The 
Dramatis  PersoncB  are  exactly  the  same  in  the 
English  as  in  Racine's  tragedy,  and  none  of  the 
incidents  of  Corneille's  invention  are  repro- 
duced. The  only  possibility  of  an  imitation  ap- 
pears to  be  in  the  last  act,  where  a  small  change 
(discussed  in  following  pages)  is  introduced, 
which,  although  entirely  different  in  form,  pro- 
duces a  little  of  the  same  effect  as  the  relenting 
of  the  Roman  Senate  in  Corneille's  play.  But 
this  seems  to  be  the  only  instance  where  Otway 
had  Corneille's  play  in  mind,  and  this  is  doubt- 
ful.    (Act  II.  Scene  4.) 

Berenice.   I  who  shall  die  if  but  debarr'd  your  sight  — 

Titus.  Madam,  what  is  it  that  your  griefs  declare  ? 
What  time  do  you  choose?  for  pity's  sake  forbear. 
Your  bounties  my  ingratitude  proclaim. 

Berenice.   You  can  do  nothing  that  deserves  that  name : 
No  sir,  you  never  can  ungrateful  prove. 
Maybe  I'm  fond  and  tire  you  with  my  love. 

Titus.   No,  madam,  no :  my  heart,  since  I  must  speak, 
Was  ne'er  more  full  of  love  or  half  so  like  to  break 
But  .  .  . 

Berenice.  What? 

Titus.  Alasl 


96       CORNEILLE  AND  RACINE  IN  ENGLAND 

Berenice.  Proceed. 

Titus.  The  Empire  .  .  . 

Rome. 

Berenice.  Well? 

Titus.  Oh,  the  dismal  secret  will  not  come — 

Away,  Paulinus,  ere  I'm  quite  undone, 
My  speech  forsakes  me  and  my  heart's  all  stone.^ 

This  comes  very  near  being  the  ideal  of  trans- 
lation, and  makes  Mrs.  Philips's  careful  accuracy- 
seem  a  little  dry.  If  Otway  had  written  the 
whole  tragedy  with  the  fidelity  which  he  shows 
here  and  with  the  art  which  is  always  his,  it 

"^Berenice.  Moi,   qui  mourrais  le  jour  qu*on  voudrait 
m'interdire 
De  vous  .  .  . 

Titus.  Madame,  helas !  que  me  venez-vous  dire  ? 
Quel  temps  choisissez-vous  ?    Ah !  de  grace  arretez : 
C'est  trop  pour  un  ingrat  prodiguer  vos  bontes. 

Berenice.  Pour  un  ingrat,  Seigneur  1     Et  le  pouvez-vous 
etre? 
Ainsi  done  mes  bontes  vous  f atiguent  peut-etre  ? 

Titus.   Non,   Madame.     Jamais,   puisqu'il  faut  vous 
parler, 
Mon  coeur  de  plus  de  f  eux  ne  se  sentit  briiler. 
Mais  ... 

Berenice.  Achevez. 

Titus.  Helas  I 

Berenice.  Parlez. 

Titus.  Rome  .  .  .  TEmpire  .  .  • 

Berenice.   H^  bien? 

Titus.  Sortons,  Paulin :  je  ne  lui  puis  rien  dire. 


THE  LAST  OF  THE   RESTORATION  97 

would  have  been  easily  the  best  translation 
made.  The  rendering  of  "  Mon  coeur  de  plus 
de  feux  ne  se  sentit  bruler  "  by  "  My  heart  .  .  . 
Was  ne'er  more  full  of  love  nor  half  so  like  to 
break  "  is  a  distinct  improvement,  and  instances 
are  not  rare  where  the  simplicity  and  feeling  of 
Otway  are  heard  in  phrases  not  in  the  original. 
There  are,  however,  not  only  a  number  of  places 
where  he  departs  from  his  original  in  linguistic 
details,  but  many  where  he  introduces  important 
differences,  not  in  the  plot  but  in  the  conception 
of  the  characters.  Antiochus  he  makes  at  once 
more  prominent  and  more  completely  admirable. 
He  intensifies  the  sad  nobility  of  the  man  and 
makes  him  a  very  touching  and  dignified  figure. 
As  for  his  treatment  of  Berenice,  Otway  has 
done  the  impossible.  Racine  had  already  writ- 
ten of  her  in  his  most  artful  and  ardent  vein, 
and  it  would  seem  out  of  the  question  for 
another  poet  to  convey  a  still  more  tender  feel- 
ing for  her  misfortunes.  But  the  English  poet's 
peculiar  gift  for  expressing  at  once  sorrow  and 
passion  enables  him  to  give  a  new  and  thrilling 
pathos  to  his  heroine.  The  final  scene  of  leave- 
taking  between  the  two  lovers  is,  if  one  dare  to 
say  it,  more  moving  even  than  the  original. 


98       CORNEILLE  AND  RACINE  IN  ENGLAND 

After  threatening  suicide,  as  in  the  French, 
Titus  by  a  final  effort  renounces  the  empire  and 
gives  himself  entirely  to  Berenice.  Assured 
by  this  that  he  is  sincere  in  attributing  their 
separation  wholly  to  the  Roman  law  and  that 
his  passion  is  as  ardent  as  at  first,  she  outdoes 
him,  and  announces  her  intention  to  leave  Rome 
forever.  From  this  point  on  the  French  is 
more  closely  followed.  This  change  Otway 
has  written  thus : 

Titxis.  Best  of  thy  sex !  and  dearest !  now  I  see 
How  poor  is  empire  when  compared  to  thee. 
Hence,  ye  perplexing  cares  that  clog  the  brain, 
Whilst  struck  with  ecstasy  I  here  fall  down. 
Thus  at  your  feet,  a  happy  prostrate  laid, 
Fm  much  more  blest  than  if  the  world  I  swayed. 

Berenice.  Now  the  blest  Berenice  enough  has  seen, 
I  thought  your  love  had  quite  extinguished  been, 
But  'twas  my  error,-  for  you  still  are  true  ; 
E'en  my  worst  sufferings  much  o'erpaid  I  see, 
Nor  shall  the  unhappy  world  be  cursed  for  me. 
Nothing,  since  first  'twas  yours,  my  love  would  shake, 
So  absolute  a  conquest  did  you  make; 
But  now  I'll  bring  it  to  the  utmost  test, 
And  with  one  funeral  act  crown  all  the  rest. 

Titus.    Ha!  tell  me,  Berenice,  what  will  you  do? 

Berenice.   Far  from  your  sight  and  Rome  forever  go, 
I  have  resolved  on't,  and  it  shall  be  so. 

Titus,  Antiochus  !    I'm  born  to  be  undone ; 


THE  LAST  OF  THE  RESTORATION  99 

When  I  the  greatest  conquest  thought  t'have  won, 
E'en  in  my  noblest  race  I  am  outrun. 

This  difference  in  the  ending  is  one  that 
merits  some  thought,  for  although  it  is  seem- 
ingly an  unimportant  change,  the  feeling  which 
caused  it  is  concerned  with  a  deeply  rooted  dif- 
ference in  the  mental  constitution  of  the  two 
nations,  and  one  which  has  a  great  influence  later 
on  the  translations  made  from  French  tragedy. 
It  is  the  English  revolt  against  the  logic  of 
the  situation  which  led  to  the  many  altera- 
tions of  sad  to  happy  endings  in  the  tragedies 
of  the  eighteenth  century.  This  is  the  first  indi- 
cation, and  although  it  is  slight,  it  is  significant 
of  that  sentimental  incapacity  to  hold  to  the  con- 
ditions as  first  presented  if  they  lead  to  unhappy 
situations.  Here  the  lack  of  logic  is  in  showing 
Titus  as  succumbing  to  the  pressure  of  circum- 
stance. At  once  the  impression  of  the  sincerity 
of  the  tragic  struggle  between  his  love  and  duty 
is  weakened.  If  he  could  bring  himself  to 
renounce  the  empire  in  the  last  act,  he  might 
have  done  it  in  the  first  and  saved  all  the  agony 
of  the  play,  which  now  goes  for  nothing  but  to 
impress  on  Berenice  the  advisability   of  her 


100     CORNEILLE  AND  RACINE  IN  ENGLAND 

withdrawal.  If  it  was  impossible  for  him  to 
give  up  his  high  position  at  any  time,  it  was 
always  impossible  under  the  same  conditions, 
and  his  doing  so  is  a  concession  to  a  senti- 
mental idea.  In  Otway's  work  this  desire  for 
a  more  comfortable  solution  of  the  problem 
than  is  logically  possible  does  not  affect  the 
main  action  of  the  play,  as  he  separates  his 
lovers  in  the  end  quite  as  tragically  as  Racine  ; 
but  as  the  tendency  grew  on  English  translators 
it  brought  about  such  absurdities  as  the  resusci- 
tation of  Hippolyte  in  Phedre  and  of  Chimene's 
father  in  the  Cid.  Apparently  the  feeling  was, 
then  as  now,  "anything  for  a  happy  ending." 

It  cannot  be  denied  that  probably  the  scene 
as  performed  was  more  moving  than  Racine's 
sombre  contest  of  the  lovers,  and  that  Berenice's 
resolve  to  leave  Rome  had  in  it  an  element  of 
dramatic  surprise  not  to  be  found  in  the 
French.  That  was  exactly  what  Otway,  con- 
sciously or  not,  was  striving  for ;  and  it  is 
exactly  this  change  in  effect  which  later 
translators  endeavored  to  secure  by  more 
obvious  and  less  artistic  shifting  of  values, 
and  which  they  so  lamentably  failed  to  achieve. 
It  is  interesting  to  find  this  concession  to  the 


THE  LAST  OF  THE  RESTORATION  101 

shrinking  from  the  ultimate  and  logical  con- 
clusion of  given  conditions,  so  deftly  arranged 
as  scarcely  to  be  noticeable  even  in  this  period 
of  exact  fidelity  to  the  text.  It  seems  almost 
impossible  that  it  is  the  same  concession  made 
later  with  such  sweeping  disregard  of  sense  and 
probability. 

The  play  was  produced  at  Dorset  Garden  with 
the  Cheats  of  Seapin^  also  translated  by  Otway. 
The  combination  was  apparently  a  fortunate  one, 
as  it  was  given  to  the  public  with  reasonable  suc- 
cess a  number  of  times.  Downes,  in  the  Roscius 
Anglicanus,  says,  "  This  Play  with  the  Farce, 
being  perfectly  well  acted,  had  good  success." 

In  spite  of  its  very  considerable  variations 
from  the  original,  Titus  and  Berenice  may, 
perhaps,  claim  to  be  the  most  satisfactory 
attempt  at  transplanting  French  tragedy  to 
the  English  stage.  It  almost  attains  the  ideal 
of  translation,  which  is  not  a  mere  reproduction 
of  the  words  and  scenes  of  the  original.  No 
matter  how  well  this  is  done,  it  never  produces 
an  English  work  of  art.  This  play  of  Otway's 
seems  to  be,  if  the  paradoxical  wording  be  par- 
doned, what  French  tragedy  would  have  been  if 
it  had  been  English. 


VII.     AN  INTERREGNUM 

With  the  death  of  Charles  II.  begins  a 
period  of  inaction  among  the  translators.  In 
the  most  prosperous  days  the  business  of  trans- 
lation is  a  growth  with  weak  roots  compared 
to  the  sturdy  nature  of  original  production, 
and  it  is  one  of  the  first  forms  of  literary 
activity  to  disappear  in  times  of  national  dis- 
order. The  rebellions  of  Argyle  and  Mon- 
mouth, the  terrible  times  of  the  Bloody  Assizes 
and  the  religious  troubles  of  James,  were  un- 
favorable to  any  attempt  to  introduce  a  foreign 
literature.  The  people  who  during  the  Resto- 
ration had  busied  themselves  with  translations 
had  neither  time  nor  disposition  to  go  on  with 
the  work. 

The  accession  of  William  and  Mary,  and  the 
confusion  of  plots  and  wars  and  new  reforms 
which  filled  their  reign,  made  no  better  condi- 
tions for  either  the  writing  or  acceptance  of 
translations,  and  it  is  not  until  toward  the 
102 


AN  INTERREGNUM  103 

end  of  Queen  Anne's  time  that  we  come 
again  upon  a  proof  of  interest  in  Racine  and 
Corneille. 

The  character  of  the  translators  of  the 
Restoration  has  been  shown  to  be  aristocratic. 
They  were  people  connected  in  one  way  and  an- 
other with  the  Court.  Later  translators  have 
this  character  no  longer,  and  the  only  two 
translations  made  during  the  uneasy  times 
sketched  above,  show  that  the  change  was 
already  taking  place. ^  One  of  the  translators 
is  a  London  merchant  and  the  other  is  a 
French  refugee,  journalist,  grammarian  and 
politician.  Already  there  is  a  great  change 
from  the  magnificent  productions  at  Court  of 
the  Persons  of  Honour  and  of  Mrs.  Philips. 

The   fact    that    the    two    translations   were 

1  In  Notes  and  Queries  (2d  series,  Vol.  IX.  p.  281)  there 
is  an  inquiry  about  a  translation  of  the  Cid  said  to  have 
been  made  in  1704  by  "T.  H.  Gent."  A  correspondent 
writes  to  know  if  any  one  can  tell  him  any  more  than  this 
bare  title.  No  answer  appears  during  the  rest  of  that  year 
(1860),  but  in  the  next  year  {N.  and  Q.  2d  series,  Vol.  XI. 
p.  150)  an  exactly  similar  inquiry  is  again  inserted.  In 
no  other  place  in  Notes  and  Queries  does  any  other  refer- 
ence to  this  translation  appear,  and  these  two  questions 
are  the  only  mention  of  it  which  the  writer  has  been  able  to 
find. 


104     CORNEILLE  AND  RACINE  IN  ENGLAND 

actually  made  during  the  period  described  as 
being  so  unfavorable,  does  not  invalidate  such  a 
characterization.  Neither  was  made  by  a  per- 
son of  high  social  standing :  one  was  done  by 
a  Frenchman,  who  is  naturally  excluded  from 
generalizations  about  the  state  of  English 
minds,  and  the  other  was  never  published,  and 
in  its  clear,  round  handwriting  still  lies  buried 
in  the  archives  of  the  British  Museum. 

This  translation  is  of  the  Cid^  and  is  the  last 
work  contained  in  a  well-preserved  folio  vol- 
ume of  the  poetical  efforts  of  .William  Popple, 
dated  1691.  The  author  is  an  uncle  of  the 
dramatist  of  the  eighteenth  century,  and  the 
nephew  of  Andrew  Marvell.  The  large  vol- 
ume in  which  are  contained,  all  carefully  in- 
dexed and  dated,  his  poetical  works,  shows  him 
to  have  been  a  poet  as  well  as  a  man  of  affairs. 
It  is  a  heterogeneous  collection:  translations 
from  Horace^  verses  for  special  occasions, 
poems  of  advice,  epitaphs,  and  almost  every- 
thing else  that  can  be  put  into  verse  —  the 
literary  accumulations  of  the  leisure  moments 
of  a  business  man. 

The  translation  of  the  Cid  is  the  most  se- 
rious  production   the    volume    holds,   and  its 


AN  INTEEREGNUM  105 

perusal  awakens  a  lively  regret  that  William 
Popple  did  not  find  the  times  suitable  for  its 
publication.  Without  any  doubt  it  would  have 
been  a  success  if  it  had  appeared  during  the 
earlier  years  of  the  reign  of  Charles  II.  It 
reproduces  the  spirit  of  the  original  with  great 
accuracy,  and  is  written  with  a  considerable 
degree  of  smoothness  and  elegance,  and  with 
much  more  control  over  technical  difficulties 
than  his  predecessor,  Rutter,  can  show  at  any 
place  in  his  work.  It  is  true  that  Popple,  like 
Rutter,  found  the  translation  of  Rodrigue's 
lyric  monologue  beyond  his  powers  to  reproduce 
exactly,  but  even  here  he  is  very  much  better 
than  his  predecessor. 

Popple  has  not  tried  to  make  a  faithful  line- 
for-line  translation.  He  has  had,  apparently, 
rather  the  ideal  of  the  Persons  of  Honour  before 
him  than  Mrs.  Philips's  more  severe  rule.  But 
the  fidelity  to  the  spirit  is  remarkable,  when 
this  is  taken  into  account.  A  very  good  ex- 
ample of  this  looseness  of  form  and  close- 
ness of  meaning  is  the  following  (Act  II. 
Scene  8): 

I  saw  him  dead,  by  Death  bereft  of  speech ; 
But  on  the  Ground  in  Characters  of  Blood 


106     CORNEILLE  AND  RACINE  IN  ENGLAND 

I  read  my  duty,  and  his  open  wound 
Call'd  loud  for  vengeance  on  his  Murderer.^ 

It  is  undeniable  that  Popple  has  here  taken 
the  sense  of  Corneille  and  put  it  into  verse  as 
he  thought  best  and  could  best  manage;  but 
the  smoothness  and  fire  of  such  a  passage  con- 
trast favorably  with  much  of  the  work  of  trans- 
lations called  more  faithful.  Popple  could  be 
more  literal,  as  is  shown  in  several  passages,  and 
he  seems  to  have  used  very  judiciously  the 
license  that  his  system  of  translation  leaves  to 
the  writer  —  not  taking  advantage  of  it  to 
make  free  renderings  except  where  it  seemed 
necessary  for  smoothness.  In  Act  I.  Scene  4, 
he  has  Englished  the  first  passage  of  Don 
Diegue's  monologue  with  the  use  of  only  one 
more  line  than  Corneille  : 


Oh  Fury,  Oh  Despaire!  Oh  curst  Old  Age ! 

Is't  to  receive  this  Infamy  at  last 

That  I  have  lived  thus  long  ?     Have  I  gone  through 

1  Je  vous  I'ai  d^j^  dit,  je  I'ai  trouvd  sans  vie ; 
Son  flanc  6tait  ouvert ;  et  pour  mieux  m'^mouvoir 
Son  sang  sur  la  poussi^re  6crivait  men  devoir ; 
Ou  plutOt  sa  valeur  en  cet  ^tat  rSduite 
Me  parlait  par  sa  plaie,  et  hatait  ma  poursuite. 


AN  INTERREGNUM  107 

So  many  Martial  toils,  to  see  my  Lawr'ls 
At  last  all  withered  in  one  day  ?  ^ 

This  is  not  inspired  translation ;  but  Popple's 
smooth  blank  verse,  the  evident  accuracy  of  his 
understanding  of  the  French,  his  good  taste  and 
true  ear,  make  this  a  most  interesting  and  valu- 
able contribution  to  the  translation  literature 
of  that  period. 

This  was  written  in  1691,  and  Popple  did 
not  die  till  1708,  but  apparently  at  no  time 
during  those  seventeen  years  did  he  deem  it 
advisable  to  publish  or  circulate  this  work  in 
any  form.  At  least,  a  diligent  search  shows  no 
reference  to  it  among  his  contemporaries. 

The  second  translation  of  this  intermediary 
time  is  a  play  called  Achilles^  a  translation  of 
Iphigenie.  Its  author  is  the  French  Huguenot 
refugee  already  referred  to,  Abel  Boyer  by 
name,  a  man  of  considerable  prominence  in 
English  life.  He  left  France  when  still  a  very 
young  man,  and  plunged  with  great  zeal  into 
English  politics,  becoming  a  staunch  advocate 

1  0  rage  !  6  d6sespoir  !  6  vieillesse  ennemie  ! 
N'ai-je  done  tant  v^cu  que  pour  cette  infamie  ? 
Et  ne  suis-je  blanchi  dans  les  travaux  guerriers 
Que  pour  voir  en  un  jour  flStrir  tant  de  lauriers  ? 


108     CORNEILLE  AND  RACINE  IN  ENGLAND 

of  Whig  principles.  This  stood  in  the  way  of 
his  advancement  on  one  occasion,  and  in  his 
resentment  at  this  check  to  his  ambition  he  left 
the  life  of  a  professor,  which  he  had  adopted, 
and  gave  himself  up  to  literature  and  politics. 
His  very  first  work  was  his  Achilles,  Boyer  is 
the  author  of  a  grammar  and  dictionary  which 
were  excellent  productions.  His  dictionary 
first  appeared  at  the  Hague  in  1702,  and  its 
popularity  may  be  judged  from  the  fact  that  in 
1860  an  edition  —  said  to  be  the  forty-first  — 
was  published  in  Paris.  .It  was,  of  course, 
infinitely  superior  to  any  French-English  dic- 
tionary that  had  appeared  before  it.  The  num- 
ber of  political  pamphlets,  essays,  monthly 
journals,  annals,  etc.,  which  are  due  to  Boyer's 
pen  is  immense.  And  it  was  he  who  had  the 
principal  management  of  the  celebrated  news- 
paper, the  Post-Boy. 

His  life  is  a  very  picturesque  one,  and  not 
the  least  picturesque  part  of  it  is  the  number 
of  quarrels  in  which  he  was  interminably  en- 
gaged. It  does  not  matter  now  whether  he  was 
an  eighteenth-century  Whistler  or  a  much-abused 
man,  the  fact  remains  that  he  almost  never 
undertook  anything  without  a  quarrel,  and  the 


AN  INTERREGNUM  109 

history  of  his  Achilles  is  no  exception  to  the 
rule. 

There  were  two  editions  of  this  work,  and  in 
both  cases  Boyer  had  trouble  connected  with 
its  appearance.  The  first  time  it  came  out 
directly  on  the  heels  of  a  tragedy  performed 
at  Lincoln's  Inn  Fields  with  little  or  no  suc- 
cess, which  was  unfortunately  so  named  as  to 
give  the  idea  to  the  public  that  it  was  on  the 
same  subject  as  Boyer's  piece.  John  Dennis, 
the  bitter,  was  the  author  of  the  first  Iphigenia 
tragedy,  and  he  founded  his  play  on  the  story 
of  Iphigenia  in  Tauris,  while  of  course  Boyer's 
work  was  of  Iphigenia  in  Aulis.  Dennis's  play 
was  a  failure.  Downes  says  of  it  that  it  did 
not  "answer  the  expense  of  the  dresses."  So 
that  not  only  had  the  public  some  reason  to 
fear  a  play  on  the  same  subject  from  Boyer, 
but  they  had  the  lively  recollection  of  having 
been  bored  at  the  performance  of  the  first  one. 
At  least  such  is  Boyer's  attitude,  as  may  be 
gathered  from  a  passage  in  his  preface. 

In  his  first  paragraph  he  speaks  about  the 
kindly  reception  of  the  play  in  England,  and 
then  continues,  "  Some  of  my  friends  have 
wondered  that  a  Play  which  was  acted  with 


110    CORNEILLE  AND  RACINE  IN  ENGLAND 

SO  much  applause  should  stop  so  soon  in  its 
career.  The  reason  of  it  is  obvious.  This 
tragedy  came  out  upon  the  Neck  of  another 
of  the  same  name,  which,  being  the  product  of 
a  Giant- Wit  and  a  Giant-Critick,  like  Horace's 
Mountain  in  Labour  had  miserably  baulked  the 
World's  Expectations  :  and  most  People  having 
been  tir'd  at  Lincolns-Inn-Fields  did  not  care 
to  venture  their  Patience  at  Drury-Lane,  upon 
a  false  supposition  that  the  two  Iphigenias  were 
much  alike :  Whereas  they  differ  no  less  than 
a  young  airy  Virgin  from  a  stale  antiquated 
Maid."  Boyer's  irritation  on  the  subject  is 
probably  not  without  just  cause,  for  the  acrid 
Mr.  Dennis  must  have  been  an  especially  dis- 
agreeable rival.  Moreover,  at  this  time  Boyer 
was  not  in  the  same  secure  financial  position 
in  which  his  later  journalistic  and  political 
activities  placed  him,  and  the  lack  of  success 
of  his  play  must  have  been  a  disappointment  to 
more  than  his  pride.  Genest  says  it  was  acted 
four  times  at  this  its  first  appearance.  This, 
while  no  proof  of  brilliant  success,  was  also  not 
the  complete  failure  that  we  would  judge  it 
from  a  modern  standpoint.  It  was  fair  luck, 
and  by  no  means  entirely  discouraging  to  an 


AN  INTERREGNUM  111 

unknown  author.  In  addition  to  the  rivalry 
with  Dennis,  Boyer,  in  the  second  edition  of  his 
play  (which  will  be  taken  up  in  its  order), 
claims  that  the  first  appearance  of  his  tragedy 
was  robbed  of  much  of  the  brilliancy  which 
might  have  been  its  fate  by  the  incompetence 
of  one  of  the  actresses.  "  It  received  no  small 
Prejudice  from  the  Person  that  acted  Eriphile, 
who  sunk  under  the  weight  of  so  great  a  part." 
He  adds,  as  final  excuse  for  his  lack  of  brilliant 
success,  that  "The  Duchess  of  Marlborough, 
who  at  that  time  bore  an  irresistible  Sway, 
bespoke  the  Comedy  then  in  Vogue  during  the 
run  of  IpJiigenia  in  Aulis,^^ 

One  is  naturally  inclined  to  regard  all  these 
excuses  on  Boyer's  part  with  suspicion,  and  to 
lay  his  lack  of  success  to  faults  in  his  work. 
But  an  examination  of  the  tragedy  shows  no 
inherent  reason  why  it  should  not  have  suc- 
ceeded. As  Baker  says,  it  is  surprisingly  free 
from  Gallicisms,^  and  it  is  evident  that  it  was 

1  The  BiograpMca  Dramatica  praises  very  highly  Boyer's 
complete  mastery  of  English,  and  says  that  he  and  Motteux 
(another  Huguenot  refugee)  were  the  only  foreigners  ever 
known  to  acquire  an  absolutely  perfect  knowledge  of  Eng- 
lish. It  does  indeed  seem  remarkable  that  Boyer,  in  only 
ten  years'  time,  could  have  acquired  such  command  of  a 


112    CORNEILLE  AND  RACINE  IN  ENGLAND 

written  by  a  man  who  understood  all  the  shades 
of  meaning  of  his  original,  though  he  does  not 
always  reproduce  them  in  another  tongue.  The 
reader  has  a  feeling  in  Boyer's  case  that  he  has 
at  least  recognized  the  vigorous  and  eloquent 
passages  and  made  the  attempt  to  give  them 
with  the  same  force  in  English.  This,  of 
course,  puts  him  far  beyond  any  such  author 
as  Lower.  His  work  gives  one  the  impression 
of  being  that  of  a  thoroughly  intelligent  man, 
and  if  he  had  had  no  other  good  qualities 
at  all  —  which  is  far  from .  being  the  case  — 
this  would  have  made  his  attempt  an  ac- 
ceptable one.  Let  the  translation  speak  for 
itself  in  a  passage  like  the  following  from 
Act  III.  Scene  6: 


Achilles.  'Twere  little  to  protect,  I  will  revenge  you 
And  punish  all  at  once  th'  ignoble  cheat 
That  dar'd  abuse  my  Name  for  your  undoing. 

Iphigenia.   My  Lord,  if  ever  you  did  truly  love  me 
Let  now  my  prayers  and  Tears  disarm  your  Anger. 
Consider  that  Barbarian  whom  you  dare 
That  cruel  bloudy  treacherous  Enemy 
Is  still  my  Father  — 

tongue  so  difficult  as  ours,  for  he  landed  in  England  in 
1689,  only  ten  years  before  the  appearance  of  Achilles. 


AN  INTERREGNUM  113 

Achilles.  Your     Father,     Madam?      No  —  his    black 
Design 
Leaves  him  no  other  than  a  Murtherer's  name !  ^ 

It  is  really  smooth,  spirited,  and  a  close  copy 
of  the  French. 

It  seems  curious  that  it  should  be  a  French- 
man who  is  the  first  to  introduce  successfully 
the  pernicious  custom  of  anglicizing  French 
tragedy  in  a  way  up  to  this  time  not  encoun- 
tered (except  in  the  AtidromacJie  of  Crowne, 
which  was  so  entirely  obscure  as  to  have  no 
influence).  From  Rutter's  Cid  to  Popple's,  no 
one  had  ever  thought  of  altering  the  text  more 
than  possibly  could  be  helped.  The  ideal  had 
always  been  to  put  the  play  on  the  English 
stage  as  it  had  been  on  the  French.  Boyer 
introduced  the  system  of  heightening  the  color 
and  action  to  fit  the  less  refined  English  tastes, 

1  Achille.   n  faut  que  le  cruel  qui  m'a  pu  m^priser 
Apprenne  de  quel  nom  il  osait  abuser. 

Iphigenie.    Helas  !  si  vous  m'aimez,  si  pour  grace  dernifere 
Vous  daignez  d'une  amante  dcouter  la  pri^re, 
C'est  maintenant,  Seigneur,  qu'il  faut  me  le  prouver. 
Car  enfin,  ce  cruel  que  vous  allez  braver, 
Get  ennemi  barbare,  injuste,  sanguinaire, 
Songez,  quoi  qu'il  ait  fait,  songez  qu'il  est  mon  pfere. 

Achille.   Lui,  votre  p6re  !    Apr6s  son  horrible  dessein, 
Je  ne  le  connais  plus  que  pour  votre  assassin. 
I 


114    CORNEILLE  AND  RACINE  IN  ENGLAND 

and  put  in  practice  a  principle  whose  worst 
result  is  reached  in  Gibber's  absurd  change  in 
the  ending  of  the  Qid.  Boyer  had  studied  the 
English  carefully,  with  a  mind  sharpened  by 
the  necessity  of  making  his  living  among  them, 
and  he  conceived  the  idea  of  changing  the  last 
act  of  IphigSnie  into  an  elaborate  spectacle. 
Ulysses'  account  of  the  rescue  of  the  heroine  is 
too  tame  to  suit  the  English,  he  thinks,  and 
accordingly  he  has  the  rescue  performed  on  the 
stage.  There  are  minute  stage  directions  for 
the  sacrificial  scene  :  bands  of  priests  singing 
invocations  to  Diana,  choruses,  an  eclipse  of  the 
sun,  thunder  and  lightning,  "  Diana  in  a  Machine 
crosses  the  stage,"  Eriphile  kills  herself  in  the 
full  glare  of  the  footlights ;  and  in  general  the 
author  endeavors  to  give  his  audience  something 
to  pay  them  for  having  waited  through  four 
long  acts  of  nothing  but  dialogue.  That  this 
curious  mixture  of  classic  tragedy  and  melo- 
drama did  not  repel  the  audiences  of  that  day 
is  seen  from  the  fact  that  this  blood-and-thunder 
ending  is  exactly  what  the  next  translator  of 
IphigSnie  takes  from  Boyer,  and  what  the  latter 
resents  most  bitterly  is  this  theft  of  his  changed 
ending.  But  that  quarrel  belongs  in  another 
chapter. 


VIII.     LE  MENTEUR 

The  advent  of  Queen  Anne  to  the  throne 
marks  a  new  epoch  in  translation-making,  which 
is,  perhaps,  the  most  interesting  in  its  history. 
This  is  the  period  when  translations  from 
Racine  and  Corneille  may  reasonably  be 
supposed  to  have  had  more  real  influence  and 
to  have  lived  more  nearly  a  spontaneous  life 
than  either  before  or  since. 

The  Restoration  translations  were  regarded 
with  respect,  it  is  true,  and  enjoyed  great  favor 
with  cultured  and  fashionable  readers.  But 
they  were  afar  off  from  the  everyday  literary 
life  of  their  day.  Not  many  attempts  were 
made  to  imitate  them  in  native  English  trage- 
dies —  they  were  neither  attacked  nor  defended 
with  any  great  fervor.  A  certain  class  of 
society  —  the  most  influential  in  England  —  had 
a  genuine  liking  for  them,  and  the  rest  of  Eng- 
land went  to  see  them  under  protest,  and  read 
them  because  they  were  the  fashion.  The  best 
men  of  letters  of  the  realm  translated  the  works 

115 


116    CORNEILLE  AND  RACINE  IN  ENGLAND 

of  the  two  great  French  tragedians,  and  having 
done  so,  made  no  words  about  it — made  no 
boast  that  their  taste  was  French  and  superior. 

With  the  advent  of  Queen  Anne  the  scene 
was  completely  changed.  Literary  activity  of 
every  description  became  infinitely  more  lively 
and  less  dignified  in  its  character.  A  flood  of 
pamphlets  and  other  ephemeral  writings  of  con- 
troversy showed  that,  for  the  first  time,  the 
power  and  cheapness  of  the  printing-press  was 
fully  realized  by  the  literary  fraternity.  The 
first  newspaper  with  any  pretence  to  literary 
quality  was  printed.  The  restless  demand  for 
continual  change  and  for  quick  reply  in  argu- 
mentative dialogue  made  itself  felt. 

To  this  general  change  in  the  world  of 
writers,  translations  quickly  responded.  No 
longer  solid  monuments, 'they  became  stones  of 
argument  which  opposing  parties  threw  at  each 
other's  heads.  They  were  no  longer  taken  as 
a  matter  of  course  and  accepted  without  ques- 
tion, as  in  the  "  good  old  well-meaning  days," 
as  Crowne  put  it.  They  were  both  advocated 
and  scorned  with  much  vigor.  On  the  one 
hand  the  people  who  admired  them  spoke  in 
aggressively  emphatic  terms,  and  on  the  other, 


LE   MENTEUR  117 

people  who  were  bored  by  them  retorted  by  a 
studious  neglect  —  not  docilely  led  by  fashion 
as  were  audiences  in  Pepys's  time.  They  were 
no  longer  apart  in  a  mildly  distinguished  atmos- 
phere of  their  own,  but  were  dragged  into  one 
of  the  fiercest  literary  battles  ever  waged  on 
English  soil;  which  ended  in  a  complete  victory 
for  the  side  opposing  translations,  Shakespeare 
and  the  romantic  drama  having  triumphed  so 
absolutely  that  one  is  obliged  to  dig  vigor- 
ously beneath  the  surface  of  the  battle  ground 
to  discover  any  traces  of  their  opponents.  In 
a  period  so  alive  with  literary  activity  it  is  to 
be  expected  that  the  translations  of  Racine  and 
Corneille  will  be  much  more  numerous  than 
ever  before.  Whereas  during  the  Restoration 
there  were  published  but  eight  plays  translated 
from  these  two  authors  in  the  whole  of  the  twenty- 
five  years  of  Charles's  reign,  in  the  ten  years  of 
Anne's  period  there  are  ten  published,  and  in 
the  fourteen  years  after  the  appearance  of  the 
first  translation  in  the  eighteenth  century  there 
were  printed  fourteen  translated  tragedies. 

It  is  natural  that  the  period  when  most  of 
these  translations  appeared  is  about  the  time 
when  Addison  in  Cato  made  the  most  worthy 


118     COENEILLE  AND  RACINE  IN  ENGLAND 

and  serious  attempt  known  to  make  classic 
tragedy  at  home  behind  English  footlights. 
Cato  was  played  for  the  first  time  in  1712,  the 
same  year  that  Ambrose  Philips  presented  his 
adaptation  of  Andromaque  (the  Distrest  Mother'), 
which  was  the  most  successful  English  adapta- 
tion from  a  French  tragedy  ever  made.  Be- 
fore three  years  had  passed  after  these  two 
successes  no  less  than  ten  translations  had 
been  made  from  Racine  and  Corneille,  of 
which  six  were  actually  performed  on  the 
stage.  This  time  was  the  most  agitated 
period  of  the  struggle  between  English  and 
French  taste,  and  it  is  not  surprising  to  see  the 
translations  most  plentiful. 

It  would  be  neither  necessary  nor  profitable 
to  attempt  to  draw  a  picture  of  those  exciting 
times.  That  has  been  done  too  well  by  others 
to  need  repeating.  On  the  other  hand,  it  is 
very  difficult  to  pick  out  from  the  tangled 
heap  of  literary  complications  just  the  trans- 
lations with  which  this  study  deals,  and  the 
facts  immediately  concerning  them;  for,  radi- 
cally unlike  the  Restoration  translations,  they 
are  connected  by  innumerable  threads  to  each 
other  and  to  the  quarrels  of  the  day. 


LE  MENTEUR  119 

Take,  for  instance,  the  tangled  history  of 
Le  Menteur.  Although  not  a  tragedy,  this  is 
a  very  good  example  of  the  chequered  career 
of  many  adaptations.  It  is  doubtful  if  any 
play  has  ever  had  a  longer  life  of  borrowings. 
Foote,  he  of  the  many  literary  larcenies,  took 
it  from  Steele,  who  took  it  from  the  anonymous 
translation  already  treated ;  the  author  of  that 
work  borrowed  it  from  Corneille,  and  Corneille, 
as  he  at  first  supposed,  from  Lope  de  Vega,  who 
did  not  write  it.  It  can  be  traced  back  no 
farther  than  Ruiz  de  Alarcon,  who  was  born  in 
America ;  but  after  such  a  history,  it  would  not 
be  surprising  to  find  that  the  plot  is  in  reality 
an  Aztec  one.  This  long  line  of  reincarnations 
which  the  comedy  has  undergone  is  the  more 
singular  because,  in  England  at  least,  none  of 
the  adaptations  had  any  signal  success.  The 
Mistaken  Beauty  has  already  been  shown  as  a 
far  from  popular  comedy,  and  according  to 
Steele's  own  account  his  Lying  Lover  fared  not 
much  better.  He  says  frankly  in  his  Apology 
for  Ms  Life :  "  This  play  was  damned  for  its 
piety."  It  is  true  this  is  one  of  the  first 
comedies  to  show  the  effect  of  the  virtuous 
Mr.  Collier's  crusade  against  the  vice  of  the 


120    CORNEILLE  AND  RACINE  IN  ENGLAND 

Restoration  comedy.  It  is  undoubtedly  pious 
—  in  spots !  But  an  impartial  examination 
into  the  merits  of  the  comedy  leads  one  to 
think  that  its  piety  was  not  the  only  reason 
for  its  lack  of  success.  The  plot  is  too  compli- 
cated for  Steele  to  handle  dexterously,  and 
he  has  not  been  satisfied  with  the  intrigue 
as  he  found  it.  Into  the  gay  and  dazzling 
Spanish  comedy  he  introduces  a  sentimental 
moral  incident  which  is  oddly  out  of  keeping 
with  the  rest  of  his  play,  which  follows  the 
French  closely.  He  makes  the  hero  kill  a 
man  while  intoxicated,  and  very  properly  find 
himself  in  prison.  Steele's  own  comment  on 
this  addition,  given  in  his  preface,  shows  better 
than  can  any  mocking  commentator  the  lachry- 
mose sentiment  displayed  by  the  hero  who  up 
to  that  point  had  been  the  jaunty,  unscrupulous 
liar  of  the  French  text :  "  The  anguish  he 
there  expresses  and  the  mutual  sorrow  between 
an  only  child  and  a  tender  father  in  that  dis- 
tress are  perhaps  an  injury  to  rule  of  comedy, 
but  I  am  sure  they  are  a  justice  to  those  of 
morality ;  and  passages  of  such  a  nature  being 
so  frequently  applauded  on  the  stage,  it  is  high 
time  we  should  no  longer  draw  occasions  of 


LE  MENTEUR  121 

mirtli  from  those  images  which  the  religion  of 
our  country  tells  us  we  ought  to  tremble  at 
with  horror."  The  man  who  wrote  those  lines 
was  not  the  one  to  reproduce  the  sparkle  of  a 
comedy  whose  success  depends  wholly  upon 
the  lightness  of  touch  with  which  the  twisted 
threads  of  the  story  are  knotted  and  untied. 
He  is  evidently  not  aware  of  this  lack  of 
dexterity  on  his  part,  for  he  says,  "  The  Spark 
of  this  story  is  introduced  with  as  much  agility 
and  life  as  He  brought  with  him  from  France 
and  as  much  Humour  as  I  could  bestow  upon 
him  in  England." 

In  the  first  three  acts  Steele  does  his  best 
work.  There  are  a  number  of  scenes  where  the 
fun  of  the  original  is  preserved  with  consider- 
able skill,  but  he  fails  to  appreciate  the  value 
of  terseness  and  crispness  in  a  dialogue  like  the 
comical  one  of  misunderstanding  about  the  river 
f^te.  (Act  II.  Scene  3.)  Corneille  had  the 
wisdom  to  lift  this  almost  bodily  from  the  lively 
and  vivacious  scene  in  the  Spanish,  and  the 
anonymous  translator  of  the  Mistaken  Beauty 
showed  more  judgment  than  Steele  by  following 
his  text  very  closely.  Steele  weighs  down  the 
brisk  movement  by  elaborations  and  amplifica- 


122     CORNEILLE  AND  RACINE  IN  ENGLAND 

tions  which  make  the  scene  heavy,  tiresome,  and 
obvious. 

In  addition,  he  followed  the  seventeenth-cen- 
tury fashion  of  writing  the  serious  scenes  of  his 
comedy  in  blank  verse.  This  is  a  great  blem- 
ish, as  his  blank  verse  is  execrable.  The  senti- 
mental scene  between  Geronte  and  Dorante 
(who  figure  in  his  adaptation  as  young  and  old 
Mr.  Bookwit)  is  written  part  in  prose  and  part 
in  an  odd  sort  of  halting  verse,  the  quality  of 
which  may  be  imagined  from  this  sample : 

Ages  and  generations  pass  away, 

And  with  resistless  force  like  Waves  o'er  Waves 

Roul  down  the  irrevocable  Stream  of  Time 

Into  the  insatiate  Ocean  for  ever.     Thus  we  are  gone ; 

But  the  erroneous    sense  of    man  —  'tis  the  lamented 

that's  at 
Rest  but  the  survivor  mourns. 

The  tone  of  this  part  of  the  comedy  is  really 
chronologically  ahead  of  Steele's  time.  It  is 
quite  in  the  style  of  sentimentality  which  was 
to  become  the  vogue  in  the  middle  of  the  cen- 
tury. It  is  curious  to  find  so  perfect  a  specimen 
of  the  comedie  larmoyante  set  into  the  body  of  a 
work  so  entirely  opposed  to  it  in  spirit.  Cor- 
neille  even  suppressed  some  of  the  more  serious 


LE  MENTEUR  123 

elements  of  the  Spanish — the  first  act  where  the 
worthy,  dignified  character  of  the  father  is  devel- 
oped —  partly,  it  is  true,  to  bring  the  more  bulky 
Spanish  play  within  the  limit  of  the  French  five 
acts,  but  partly,  it  cannot  be  doubted,  to  better 
preserve  the  unity  of  feeling  throughout  the 
play.  If  we  are  to  feel  any  real  sympathetic 
interest  in  the  father,  the  pranks  of  the  son  are 
no  longer  comical.  "We  are  taken  at  once  from 
the  gay  atmosphere  of  farcical  comedy,  where 
an  underlying  consciousness  of  the  unreality 
of  the  story  keeps  the  perplexities  of  the  father 
from  being  painful  to  us. 

With  all  these  faults,  however,  and  in  spite 
of  Steele's  assertion  as  to  the  effect  of  the  piety 
of  his  comedy,^  it  cannot  be  said  to  have  been  a 
complete  failure.  With  Nance  Oldfield's  lively 
tongue  speaking  Victoria's  part  (Lucrece),  and 
with  CoUey  Gibber  in  one  of  his  good  parts  as 
gracioso  —  the  comic  servant  of  the  hero  —  it 
must  have  been  amusing.  It  was  performed  six 
times,  according  to  Genest,  which  is  not  bad  luck. 

1  Steele's  own  idea  of  the  significance  of  the  Liar  in  con- 
nection with  Collier's  crusade  may  be  seen  from  the  motto 
he  puts  on  the  title-page,  "  Haec  nosse  salus  est  adoles- 
centulis." 


124    CORNEILLE  AND  RACINE  IN  ENGLAND 

The  reference  in  the  preface  to  bringing  his 
hero  from  France  would  seem  to  indicate  that 
Steele  wished  his  readers  to  think  that  he  drew 
his  material  entirely  from  Corneille.  There  are 
several  indications,  however,  that  he  knew  and 
had  read  carefully  the  Mistaken  Beauty.  In 
the  first  act  in  the  description  of  the  river  fete, 
he  suddenly  breaks  from  his  familiar  chatty 
prose  into  the  same  sort  of  pseudo-verse  with 
which  the  author  of  the  Mistaken  Beauty  treats 
the  same  theme.  As  there  is  no  reason  what- 
ever for  this  sudden  change  of  treatment  in 
either  the  French  or  Spanish,  the  coincidence  can 
scarcely  mean  anything  but  that  Steele  drew 
some  of  his  ideas  from  the  seventeenth-century 
translator. 

In  this  desire  to  conceal  the  real  source  of  his 
comedy,  Steele  is  like  the  next  adapter  of  Le 
Menteur,  who  treats  both  Steele  and  Corneille  as 
Steele  treated  the  Mistaken  Beauty.  It  is  a  long 
interval  to  the  next  translation  of  Le  Menteur, 
but  to  make  the  chronology  of  this  play  com- 
plete it  may  be  reported  at  this  time.  Samuel 
Foote,  of  dubious  reputation  and  undoubted 
comic  talent,  nearly  sixty  years  after  Steele's 
Liar  had  not  succeeded,  thought  he  could  bet- 


LE  MENTEUR  125 

ter  it.  He  accordingly  produced  The  Lyar^  in 
which  he  took  the  title  role  on  January  12, 
1762,  at  Covent  Garden.  In  his  prologue  he 
claims  to  have  taken  his  hero  from  Spain : 

We  bring  to-night  a  stranger  on  the  stage, 
His  sire  De  Vega ;  we  confess  the  truth 
Lest  you  mistake  him  for  a  British  youth. 

And  after  a  comical  defence  of  his  habit  of 
ridiculing  living  persons,  he  forbids  any  one  to 
see  a  caricature  in  this  play  in  the  following 
words : 

But  in  the  following  group  let  no  man  dare, 
To  claim  a  limb,  nay,  not  a  single  hair ; 
What  gallant  Briton  can  be  such  a  sot 
To  own  the  child  a  Spaniard  has  begot? 

If  Foote  intended  by  this  to  draw  attention 
away  from  his  indebtedness  to  his  more  imme- 
diate predecessors,  he  succeeded  only  partially. 
The  3Ionthly  Review  (Vol.  XXXI.  p.  153)  does 
seem  to  be  deceived,  for  it  gives  a  long  and 
very  favorable  criticism  of  the  "  new  comedy," 
reprinting  a  whole  scene  as  a  sample,  praising 
the  vivacity  and  humor  which  Foote  always 
displays,  and  nowhere  making  any  mention  of  a 
source  other  than  the  original  Spanish.  Doran 
speaks  of  it  as  original,  but  this  must  be  an 


126     CORNEILLE  AND  RACINE  IN  ENGLAND 

oversight.  The  Lying  Lover  was  after  all  a  work 
of  the  same  century,  and  Steele  was  a  well- 
known  figure.  All  the  authorities  of  a  later 
date  recognize  his  sources  with  perfect  ease. 
Genest^  indeed  shows  remarkable  penetration. 
He  read,  it  is  to  be  supposed,  neither  the 
French  nor  Spanish  originals,  yet  he  chooses  for 
his  proofs  of  Foote's  cribbing  from  Steele  two 
passages,  which  are  precisely  the  ones  most 
completely  detached  from  either  of  the  foreign 
versions.  It  is  true  that  he  had  the  Mistaken 
Beauty  as  a  sort  of  guide,  but  that  is  not  a 
very  trustworthy  witness.  A  fact  further  cor- 
roborating Genest's  contemptuous  refusal  to 
believe  Foote's  claim  to  an  exclusively  Spanish 
source,  and  one  which  he  probably  could  not 
know,  is  that  although  Foote  worked  over  the 
comedy,  in  many  ways  altering  the  story  and 
differing  from  all  three  of  his  models  in  some 
points,  he  never  by  any  chance  hits  upon  a 
variant  which  even  faintly  recalls  the  Spanish 
comedy  which  he  insists  is  his  original.  On 
the  other  hand,  he  evidently  did  not  limit  his 
attentions  to  Steele,  for  there  are  a  few  indica- 
tions here  and  there  of  a  knowledge  on  his  part 

1  Some  Account^  Vol.  IV,  p.  649. 


LE  MENTEUR  127 

of  either  the  Mistaken  Beauty  or  Le  Menteur. 
In  the  scene  at  the  end  of  the  second  act  of  the 
French  there  is  a  joke  about  the  rapidity  with 
which  Dorante  gets  into  the  thick  of  fashionable 
city  life : 

Vienne  encore  un  proces,  et  je  suis  achev^. 
D'aujourd'hui  seulement  je  produis  mon  visage 
Et  j'ai  dejk  querelle,  amour  et  mariage. 

This  reference  to  the  lawsuit  is  faithfully 
reproduced  in  the  Mistaken  Beauty^  omitted  in 
Steele's  Lying  Lover^  and  inserted  in  Foote's 
Lyar^  copied  almost  verbatim. 

But  after  all,  the  question  of  where  Foote  got 
his  material  is  a  minor  one,  compared  to  the 
all-important  one  of  what  he  did  with  it.  He 
at  once  excuses  his  lack  of  candor  by  making 
really  excellent  use  of  the  main  outlines  of  the 
story.  He  simplifies  the  action  somewhat,  re- 
ducing the  comedy  to  three  acts,  rejects  wisely 
Steele's  absurd  and  hysterical  ending,  and  car- 
ries the  lively  story  to  a  lively  conclusion,  with 
an  invention  of  his  own  which  savors  of  farce 
but  which  is  infinitely  more  suited  to  the  brisk 
and  unsentimental  tone  of  the  comedy  as  a 
whole. 


128    CORNEILLE   AND   RACINE  IN  ENGLAND 

The  Biographica  Dramatica  takes  especial 
pains  to  record  "  the  incomparable  acting  of  the 
late  Mr.  John  Palmer  in  this  piece.  Human 
nature  was  never,  perhaps,  more  perfectly  rep- 
resented on  the  stage  than  by  his  performance 
of  the  principal  character  in  this  piece."  As 
Foote  himself  played  Young  Wilding  (Dor ante) 
in  the  first  performances,  this  note  would  seem 
to  show  that  the  play  held  its  place  on  the 
stage  after  its  author's  day.  Unless,  indeed. 
Palmer  played  in  the  farce  which  the  Bio- 
graphica  Dramatica  mentions  in  its  notice  of 
the  comedy  :  "  It  has  since  been  reduced  to  a 
farce,  and  in  that  state  is  frequently  acted." 
(This  in  1812.)  Foote's  three-act  comedy  has 
already  many  of  the  elements  of  a  farce,  and  it 
is  not  surprising  to  find  that  some  one  carried  it 
the  one  step  farther.  This  farce  is  the  sixth 
generation  from  La  Verdad  Sospechosa ;  but  it 
is  so  much  changed  that  it  can  scarcely  be 
counted  as  a  member  of  the  family. 


IX.     PH^DRA  AND   HIPPOLITUS 

With  the  next  tragedy  translated  we  are  on 
the  outskirts  of  the  battle,  and  the  classical 
party  begin  the  action  by  their  attitude 
towards  the  Phcedra  and  Hippolitus  of  Ed- 
mund Smith. 

It  is  not  necessary  to  go  into  the  details  of 
Smith's  somewhat  irregular  life.  It  is  enough 
to  say  that  he  matriculated  at  Oxford  in  1688, 
was  a  thorough  scholar,  knew  well  Greek  and 
Latin  and  several  modern  languages,  was 
highly  unscholastic  in  his  behavior.  In  1700 
his  place  was  declared  "void,  he  having  been 
convicted  of  riotous  behaviour  in  the  house  of 
Mr.  Cole,  an  apothecary,"  and  in  December  of 
1705,  at  the  age  of  thirty-three,  he  was  expelled. 
He  came  up  to  London  and  became  an  enthusi- 
astic Whig.  Addison  and  a  number  of  other 
influential  literary  men  were  at  once  attracted 
by  the  winning  ne'er-do-weel,  and  he  soon  had 
a  company  of  powerful  friends.     Johnson  says 

K  129 


130     CORNEILLE  AND  RACINE  IN  ENGLAND 

neatly  of  him,  "He  was  one  of  those  lucky 
writers  who  are  mentioned  with  reverence 
rather  for  the  possession  than  the  exertion  of 
uncommon  abilities."  He  is  said  to  have  been 
unusually  handsome,  and  as  careless  in  his 
dress  as  in  matters  of  conduct,  so  that  he  was 
called  the  "Handsome  Sloven"  or  "Captain 
Rag."  This  personal  charm  of  Smith's  is  men- 
tioned because  it  is  probably  partly  due  to  it 
that  he  obtained  such  warm  support  for  his  far 
from  valuable  translation  of  Phedre, 

Another  reason  for  the  warmth  of  his  recep- 
tion by  the  critics  was  the  bitter  antipathy 
felt  by  English  men  of  letters  of  that  day  for 
the  Italian  opera.  They  seem  to  have  feared 
honestly  lest  the  immense  popularity  of  this 
comparatively  new  form  of  entertainment 
threaten  the  legitimate  English  stage.  It  seems 
from  this  distance  as  though  almost  anything 
would  have  formed  a  better  counter-attraction 
to  opera  than  Smith's  tragedy;  but  its  lack  of 
success  was  evidently  a  complete  surprise  and 
an  unexpected  disappointment  to  Addison  and 
his  circle  of  adherents.  They  had  done  their 
best  for  the  new  play  in  every  way. 

It  was  presented  under  what  must  have  been 


PHiEDRA  AND  HIPPOLITUS  131 

very  favorable  circumstances.  The  best  of  the 
Haymarket  company  appeared,  Theseus  being 
taken  by  Betterton,  Hippolitus  by  Booth, 
Phgedra  by  Mrs.  Barry,  and  Ismena  by  Mrs. 
Oldfield  —  what  would  be  called  now  a  star 
cast.  Addison  himself  wrote  the  prologue, 
which  was  spoken  by  Mr.  Wilkes.  It  is  com- 
posed almost  exclusively  of  an  attack  on  the 
Italian  opera  and  on  music  in  general.  He 
ends  by  saying  that  the  intelligibility  of  the 
play  will  doubtless  be  a  detriment  to  it,  and 
that  the  audience  would  probably  be  more 
satisfied  to  have  Hippolitus  sing  his  speeches  in 
Greek  : 

But  he,  a  stranger  to  your  modish  way, 
By  your  old  Rules  must  stand  or  fall  to-day ; 
And  hopes  you  will  your  foreign  Taste  command 
To  bear,  for  once,  with  what  you  understand. 

In  the  consideration  of  the  play  itself  it  is  a 
little  hard  to  tell  how  much  comes  from  Smith's 
Latin  and  Greek  sources,  and  how  much  directly 
from  the  French ;  but  a  careful  comparison  of 
his  text  with  that  of  Euripides,  Seneca,  and 
Racine  inclines  one  to  think  that  a  great  deal 
more  comes  from  Racine  than  is  usually  granted. 

It  would  be  too  long  a  matter  to  give  here 


132     CORNEILLE  AND  RACINE  IN  ENGLAND 

all  the  passages  corroborating  this  conclusion, 
but  a  few  may  be  chosen.  Genest  says: 
"  When  Phi3edra  enters  in  the  first  act  several 
speeches  are  taken  from  Euripides.  They  are 
the  best  in  the  play."  This  is  one  of  the  pas- 
sages where  Racine  has  most  closely  followed 
Euripides ;  but  even  here  it  may  be  seen  that 
Smith  has  followed  rather  Racine's  amplifica- 
tion of  these  speeches  than  the  terse  original 
(Act  I.  Scene  3)  : 

Stay,  Virgins,  stay,  I'll  rest  my  weary  Steps ; 
My  strength  forsakes  me,  and  my  dazzled  eyes 
Ake  with  the  flashing  light,  my  loosened  knees 
Sink  under  their  dull  Weight ;  support  me,  Lycon. 
Alas !  I  f  aint.^ 

There  are  many  such  instances  where,  to  one 
not  knowing  the  French,  Smith  would  seem  to 
follow  the  Greek. 

But  there  is  still  more  conclusive  evidence  in 

1  (Euripides.)     Support  me,  hold  up  my  head,  all  the 
strength  of  my  limbs  is  gone.     Women,  support  my  fair 
arms. 
Phedre.   N'allons  point  plus  avant.    Demeurons,  ch6re 
CEnone 
Je  ne  me  soutiens  plus  ;  ma  force  m'abandonne : 
Mes  yeux  sont  (^blouis  du  jour  que  je  revoi ; 
Et  mes  genoux  tremblants  se  d^robent  sous  moi.  '^ 

Hdlas! 


PHiEDRA  AND  HIPPOLITUS  133 

various  passages  where  expressions  of  Racine 
are  used  that  are  not  in  the  Greek  at  all. 

(Racine.)  (Enone.  Dieux  tout-puissants  que  nos 
pleurs.  .  .  . 

(Smith.)     Lycon.  AfEord  her  ease,  Kind  Heaven. 

(Racine.)  Quand  pourrai-je  au  travers  d'une  nolle 
poussiere.  .  .  . 

(Smith.)     And  in  the  noble  Dust  the  chariot's  lost. 

This  peculiar  expression  translated  literally 
is  very  noticeable. 

(Racine.)  CEnone.  Ah  s'il  faut  rougir,  rougissez  d'un 
silence.  .  .  . 

(Smith.)  Lycon.  Blush  then,  but  blush  for  your  de- 
structive silence. 

It  is  perfectly  true  that  Smith  has  not  made 
a  translation  of  Racine,  as  will  be  only  too 
evident  when  his  ending  is  recounted,  but  the 
main  body  of  his  plot  and  very  many  speeches 
are  lifted  bodily.  He  introduces  Ismena  and 
makes  Hippolitus  in  love.  This  certainly  can 
be  referred  to  nothing  but  an  imitation  of 
Racine. 

From  about  the  middle  of  the  fourth  act 
Smith  abandons  all  guides,  Greek,  Latin  and 
French,  and  strikes  out  for  himself  a  truly 
British  ending.     He  follows  the  tactics  adopted 


134    CORNEILLE   AND  RACINE  IN  ENGLAND 

later  by  CoUey  Gibber  in  his  Seroick  Daughter^ 
and  makes  his  tragedy  end  happily.  Hippoli- 
tus  is  led  off  by  guards  after  Phaedra  denounces 
him,  and  a  little  later  a  messenger  announces 
that  he  has  stabbed  himself.  The  intervention 
of  Neptune  is  wholly  omitted.  Phsedra,  upon 
hearing  that  Hippolitus  is  dead,  kills  herself 
after  a  long  burst  of  conventional  fifth-act  rav- 
ings —  wholly  of  Smith's  inventions  : 

See,  Hell  sets  wide  its  Adamantine  Gates, 

See,  thro'  the  sable  gates  the  black  Cocytus 

In  smoaky  Circles  rolls  its  Firey  Waves, 

Hear,  hear  the  stunning  Harmonies  of  Woe, 

The  Din  of  rattling  Chains,  of  clashing  whips,  etc. 

Ismena  "  offers  to  stab  herself,"  but  at  this 
point  Hippolitus  enters  safe  and  sound,  having 
had  too  much  British  good  sense  to  stab  himself. 
Theseus  gives  Ismena  to  him  with  the  follow- 
ing blessing  : 

Be  this  thy  Doom 
To  live  forever  in  Ismena's  arms. 
Go,  heavenly  Pair  and  with  your  dazzling  Virtues, 
Your  courage.  Truth,  your  Innocence  and  Love 
Amaze  and  charm  Mankind. 

To  which  Ismena  answers,  "  O  killing  Joy!  " 
and  Hippolitus,  "  Oh  Extasy  of  Bliss  !  "     This 


PHiEDRA  AND   HIPPOLITUS  135 

absurd  variation  from  the  well-known  legend 
is  defended  at  the  end  of  the  play  by  a  speech 
from  Hippolitus: 

The  righteous  Gods  that  Innocence  require 
Protect  the  Goodness  which  themselves  inspire. 
Unguarded  Virtue  human  Arts  defies 
Th'  Accused  is  happy  while  th'  Accuser  dies. 

l^Exeunt  omnes. 

It  must  have  been  a  grievous  surprise  to 
Smith  and  his  friends  to  find  that  a  tragedy  so 
thoughtfully  arranged  for  the  benefit  of  the 
sensibilities  of  the  British  public,  should  meet 
with  so  little  favor  at  its  hands.  This  change 
in  the  ending  seems  incredibly  ludicrous  now, 
and  it  is  difficult  to  conceive  how  Addison 
could  have  been  sincere  in  his  praises  of  it. 

It  can  easily  be  seen  from  these  extracts  that 
the  style  is  by  no  means  excellent,  and  this  is 
especially  true  as  soon  as  Smith  leaves  the  guid- 
ance of  Racine  and  goes  his  own  way.  Before 
that,  and  especially  in  the  passages  where  he  fol- 
lows more  closely  his  great  original,  he  produces 
some  lines  that  are  fair  examples  of  the  swell- 
ing grandiose  style  in  which  he  chose  to  write. 
There  is  no  doubt  that  part  of  the  admiration 
of  the  critics  of  that  day  is  due  to  the  fact  that 


136    CORNEILLE  AND  RACINE  IN  ENGLAND 

the  bare  story  of  Phsedra,  in  whatever  form  it 
be  embodied,  is  a  moving  and  a  tragic  one —  a 
tribute  indeed  when  Smith's  pompous  style  is 
taken  into  account. 

Certainly  no  effort  was  spared  to  make  this 
tragedy  acceptable  to  the  British  audiences  of 
that  period.  In  addition  to  the  happy  ending 
and  the  sentimentality  of  Hippolitus's  last  scene 
with  Ismena,  there  was  an  epilogue  written  by 
the  popular  Matt  Prior,  which  balances  on  the 
very  edge  of  coarseness  and  occasionally  tips 
the  wrong  way.  This  merry  mockery  of  Phae- 
dra's plight  and  treatment  of  her  as  though  she 
were  a  London  merchant's  wife,  lost  nothing  of 
its  salt  by  issuing  from  the  spicy  lips  of  Nance 
Oldfield. 

In  a  fourth  edition  in  1729  (it  seems  to  have 
been  read  eagerly  enough  by  the  public  if  it 
was  not  witnessed  with  any  enthusiasm)  there 
is  a  " Character  of  Mr.  Smith"  prefixed  by  two 
of  his  Oxford  friends.  They  speak  of  him 
with  great  admiration,  as  was  natural,  and  that 
the  idea  that  Phoedra  was  a  great  work  was 
still  prevalent,  this  passage  will  testify : 

"  His  Phcedra  is  a  consummate  Tragedy  and 
the   Success   of  it  was  as  great  as  the  most 


PH^DRA  AND   HIPPOLITUS  137 

sanguine  Expectations  of  his  Friends  could 
promise  or  foresee.  The  Number  of  Nights  and 
the  common  Method  of  filling  the  House  are 
not  always  the  surest  Marks  of  judging  what 
Encouragement  a  Play  meets  with."  (Addison 
says  the  play  was  hardly  heard  the  second 
night  and  was  taken  from  the  stage  after  the 
fourth. )  "  But  the  Generosity  of  all  Persons  of 
a  refined  taste  about  Town  was  remarkable  on 
this  Occasion.  .  .  .  and  it  must  not  be  for- 
gotten how  zealously  Mr.  Addison  espoused 
his  Interest  with  all  the  elegant  Judgment  and 
diffusive  Good-Nature  for  which  that  distin- 
guished Gentleman  and  Author  is  so  justly 
valued  by  Mankind.  But  as  to  Phaedra,  she 
has  certainly  made  a  finer  Figure  upon  the 
English  Stage  than  either  in  Rome  or  Athens ; 
and  if  she  excells  the  Greek  and  Latin  Phaedra, 
I  need  not  say  she  surpasses  the  French  one." 
This  was  not  an  isolated  opinion.  The 
Dictionary  of  National  Biography  gives  several 
proofs  of  a  general  feeling  among  people  of 
letters  that  the  play  was  a  great  one,  and 
Addison  expresses  himself  most  vigorously  in 
Number  18  of  the  Spectator  upon  the  degen- 
eracy of  the  times.     "  Would  one  think  it  was 


138     CORNEILLE  AND   RACINE  IN  ENGLAND 

possible  at  a  time  when  an  Author  lived  who 
was  able  to  write  the  Phcedra  and  Hippolitus  for 
a  People  to  be  so  stupidly  fond  of  the  Italian 
Opera  as  scarce  to  give  a  third  Day's  Hearing 
to  that  admirable  Tragedy  ?  " 

This  was  one  of  the  first  of  the  translations, 
and  it  found  only  a  small  audience  of  cultured 
people  ready  to  admire  it  for  its  classical  tone. 
The  great  throng  of  theatre-goers  scoffed  at  it. 
Later  on,  after  long  series  of  translations  from 
classic  tragedy  were  imposed  upon  them,  they 
grew  more  accustomed  to  the  new  fashion,  and 
Genest  records  eight  revivals  of  Phcedra  and 
Hippolitus.  Baker  says,  "It  is  an  admirable 
play  and  still  continued  on  the  list  of  acting 
tragedies  ;  yet  it  met  at  first  with  scant  en- 
couragement from  audiences."  In  1723  it  was 
revived  for  the  first  time  at  Lincoln's  Inn  Fields 
and  played  three  times,  in  1754  at  Drury  Lane 
it  was  acted  three  times,  and  in  November  of 
the  same  year  twice  at  Co  vent  Garden.  This 
occasion  is  interesting  because  Peg  Woffington 
played  Phaedra,  a  singular  role  for  the  light- 
hearted  Irish  actress.  She  must  have  liked  the 
role  and  have  been  successful  in  it,  for  two  years 
later  she  acted  it  again,  and  later  in  that  same 


PH^DRA  AND  HIPPOLITUS  139 

year  once  more.  Hitchcock^  reports  that  in 
1758  it  was  played  in  Dublin,  but  on  that  even- 
ing and  the  one  when  Tancred  was  played,  the 
box-office  receipts  were  lower  than  on  any 
other  evenings  of  the  season,  the  receipts  for 
Phaedra  being  only  X44  when  the  average 
was  <£77.  It  was  presented  in  1774  and  in 
1775,  and  this  is  the  end  of  a  long  record  and 
one  more  successful  than  almost  any  other  of 
the  translations  made  from  Racine  and  Cor- 
neille.  It  seems  that  Addison  and  his  followers 
were  only  a  little  ahead  of  their  time  in  pre- 
dicting, in  so  confident  a  manner,  success  for 
the  tragedy.  The  difficulty  about  its  first 
representation  was  that  it  was  a  pioneer  and 
suffered  the  hard  fate  of  most  pioneers. 

1  History  of  the  Irish  Stage. 


X.     THE  DISTRESSED   MOTHER 

After  the  Phcedra  and  Hippolitus  of  Ed- 
mund Smith  had  met  with  such  an  extremely 
moderate  success,  six  years  passed  before  another 
author  was  brave  enough  to  risk  another  at- 
tempt. But  in  1712,  on  March  17th,  there  ap- 
peared what  was  to  be  by  all  odds  the  most 
popular  and  successful  translation  of  a  French 
tragedy  ever  produced,  —  the  Distrest  Mother 
of  Ambrose  Philips,  translated  and  slightly 
adapted  from  Andromaque. 

On  the  1st  of  February,  1712,  Steele  wrote  a 
very  complimentary  announcement  of  the  new 
play.  Nearly  that  entire  number  of  the  Spec- 
tator is  given  up  to  a  tantalizing  account  of  the 
excellences  of  the  tragedy,  calculated  to  arouse 
the  curiosity  of  the  public.  Steele  says :  "  I 
must  confess,  though  some  days  are  passed 
since  I  enjoyed  that  entertainment  (i.e.  read- 
ing the  Mss.  of  the  Distrest  Mother),  the  pas- 
sions of  the  several  characters  dwell  strongly 
upon  my  imagination;  I  congratulate  the  age 
140 


THE  DISTRESSED  MOTHER  141 

that  they  are  at  last  to  see  truth  and  human 
life  represented  in  the  incidents  which  concern 
heroes  and  heroines.  It  was  a  most  exquisite 
pleasure  to  observe  real  tears  drop  from  the 
eyes  of  those  who  had  long  made  it  their  pro- 
fession to  dissemble  affliction;  and  the  player 
who  read  frequently  threw  down  the  book  until 
he  had  given  vent  to  the  humanity  which  rose 
in  him  at  some  irresistible  touches  of  the  imag- 
ined sorrow.  .  .  .  My  friend  Will  Honeycomb 
commended  several  things  that  were  said  and 
told  me  they  were  very  genteel ;  but  whispered 
me  that  he  feared  the  piece  was  not  busy  enough 
for  the  present  taste.  To  supply  this  he  recom- 
mended to  the  players  to  be  very  careful  in 
their  scenes ;  and  above  all  things  that  every 
part  should  be  perfectly  new  dressed." 

He  forestalls  the  objection  which  many  Brit- 
ish critics  of  that  time  made  to  the  story  —  i.e. 
that  there  is  no  real  reason  why  Andromache 
should  not  marry  Pyrrhus,  by  saying  that  had 
she  done  so,  "she  might  still  be  an  honest  woman 
but  no  heroine."  "  The  town  has  an  opportu- 
nity of  doing  itself  justice  in  supporting  the 
representation  of  passion,  sorrow,  indignation, 
and   even   despair   itself   within   the   rules   of 


142    CORNEILLE  AND  RACINE  IN  ENGLAND 

decency,  honour,  and  good  breeding."  In  this 
last  sentence  is  heard  the  note  of  the  classical 
side  of  the  struggle  against  the  license  of  the 
Shakespearian  tragedy. 

As  in  the  case  of  Smith,  no  effort  was  spared 
by  the  Addison-Steele  coterie  to  launch  tri- 
umphantly a  man  who  had  written  a  classical 
tragedy  which  they  were  trying  to  introduce 
on  the  English  stage,  and  who  was,  moreover, 
a  zealous  Whig.  But  there  were  a  number  of 
differences  between  the  two  attempts.  In  the 
six  years  since  Smith's  failure  they  had  grown 
greatly  in  influence  and  fame,  and  the  Spectator 
was  a  power  of  great  note.  They  had,  more- 
over, a  very  different  person  from  the  slovenly 
Bohemian,  "  Captain  Rag "  of  the  Phcedra^  in 
decent  Ambrose  Philips,  already  known  for 
his  Epistle  to  the  Earl  of  Dorset  and  his  famous 
Pastorals,  Further  than  this,  their  man  had 
chosen  for  translation  the  tragedy  above  all 
others  calculated  to  appeal  to  English  tastes. 
An  unhappy  widow  struggling  to  remain  faith- 
ful to  her  husband  and  to  protect  her  child  — 
what  theme  could  be  more  welcome  to  the  sen- 
timental audiences  of  the  eighteenth  century  ? 
Jeremy  Collier's  fierce  attack  on  the  dirty  com- 


THE  DISTRESSED  MOTHER  143 

edies  of  the  Restoration  had  produced  a  wave 
of  reaction  against  immoral  plays  —  what  could 
be  more  moral  than  this  weeping  mother  ?  The 
very  subject  of  Phoedra  and  Hippolitus  was  un- 
pleasant to  the  newly  quickened  consciences  of 
that  period.  This  difference  between  the  two 
tragedies  was  consciously  felt  by  the  public, 
and  is  alluded  to  in  a  pamphlet  ^  written  about 
the  great  success  of  the  Distrest  Mother  in  1712. 
The  author  speaks  of  the  reproaches  which  were 
heaped  upon  the  tastelessness  of  the  English 
audience  by  the  Spectator  when  the  Phcedra 
failed,  and  claims  that  it  was  a  wholesome 
instinct  which  made  that  tragedy  unpopular 
and  not  at  all  the  fact  that  it  was  written  in 
the  classical  style.  "The  whole  Fabrick  of 
the  play  was  built  upon  a  rotten  foundation 
.  .  .  a  Subject  so  rank  as  (notwithstanding 
the  wondrous  performance  of  Mrs.  Barry) 
even  nauseated  the  whole  or  at  least  the  sober 
part  of  the  Audience." 

A  play  like  Cinna^  where  Roman  politics  and 
a  woman's  fierce  desire  for  revenge  form  the 
theme,  could  not  in  the  nature  of  things  interest 

1  A  Modest  Survey  of  that  Celebrated  Tragedy ^  the  Dis- 
trest Mother^  London,  1712. 


144    CORNEILLE  AND  RACINE  IN  ENGLAND 

a  public  which  knew  almost  nothing  of  Roman 
politics  and  which  demanded  what  modern 
American  playwrights  call  a  "heart  interest." 
The  Cid  had  more  points  of  sympathy,  but  the 
Spanish  point  of  honor  was  foreign  to  Eng- 
land ;  and  as  for  Pompey^  that  was  again  Roman 
politics.  No  one  needed  any  knowledge  of 
history  to  feel  for  a  heroine  placed  in  the  situa- 
tion of  Andromache. 

The  benevolent  efforts  of  Philips's  friends  did 
not  stop  with  preliminary  laudatory  announce- 
ments. The  audience  of  the  .first  night  was 
filled  with  adherents  of  the  author,  and  every 
attempt  was  made  to  have  the  first  representa- 
tion the  great  night  of  the  season.  This  time 
the  little  clique  had  developed  into  a  powerful 
assembly  of  literary  people  who  were  all  eager- 
ness to  introduce  classical  tragedy  into  English 
letters,  and  they  were  strong  enough  to  carry 
their  point.  It  was  the  great  night  of  the 
season.  All  witnesses  confirm  this,  although 
many  attempt  to  belittle  the  significance  by 
insisting  that  it  was  a  wholly  artificial  success 
due  entirely  to  the  support  of  Addison  and 
Steele.  Ward  himself  says  bluntly,  "  The 
efforts  of  Steele  and  Addison  to   buoy  up  its 


THE   DISTRESSED  MOTHER  145 

theatrical  success  have  succeeded  in  securing  to 
it  a  place  among  the  remembered  productions 
of  our  dramatic  literature."  Doran ^  says,  "  The 
English  piece  is  even  duller  than  the  French 
one  but  there  is  good  scope  for  declamatory 
actors."  Genest^  assigns  the  same  reason  for 
its  popularity  :  "  No  circumstance  to  recom- 
mend it  but  affords  good  scope  of  acting." 
Genest  is  very  much  annoyed  by  the  fact  that 
"the  word  'Madam'  occurs  fifty-four  times." 
Dr.  Johnson's  sole  comment  on  the  merits  of  the 
Dtstrest  Mother  are,  "  Of  the  Distrest  Mother  not 
much  is  pretended  to  be  his  own  and  therefore 
it  is  no  subject  of  criticism.  Such  a  work  re- 
quires no  uncommon  power."  ^ 

These  extracts  show  that  the  critics  of  later 
days  are  by  no  means  enthusiastic  about  the 
tragedy,  and  regard  it  as  one  of  the  purely 
ephemeral  triumphs  assured  by  the  ill-con- 
sidered partiality  of  contemporary  critics.  But 
there  is  more  in  the  continued  success  of  the 
tragedy  than  can  be  accounted  for  in  this  way. 
The  sure  mark   of  an  artificial  success  is  its 

1  Annals  of  the  English  Stage^  Vol.  I.  p.  321. 

2  Some  Account,  Vol.  II.  p.  496. 

8  See  preface  and  life  of  A.  Philips  in  British  Poets. 


146    CORNEILLE  AND  RACINE  IN  ENGLAND 

lack  of  permanency.  Now  the  Distrest  Mother 
had  not  only  large  audiences  and  a  long  run 
when  it  first  appeared,  but  it  continued  during 
the  whole  of  the  eighteenth  century  to  hold 
the  stage  with  only  infrequent  intervals  of 
absence.  Every  great  actress  of  the  century 
played  the  title  role  of  Hermione  many  times, 
and  it  was  continually  represented  by  the  best 
companies  in  the  kingdom.  It  was  one  of  the 
favorites  in  the  provinces  as  well  as  in  Lon- 
don, was  played  by  the  London  troupes  in  their 
visits  to  Liverpool,  Manchester,  Bath,  and  other 
provincial  "  stands  "  ;  and  was  especially  liked 
in  Dublin,  which  seems  always  to  have  been 
partial  to  French  masterpieces. 

Hitchcock  (^History  of  the  Irish  Stage')  says 
that  in  January  of  1732  it  was  decided  to  give 
a  play  by  amateurs  at  the  Castle  of  the  Lord 
Lieutenant.  The  Distrest  Mother  was  chosen 
for  its  great  fame  and  decorous  character,  and 
"was  acted  at  the  council  chamber,  in  the 
Castle  of  Dublin.  Lord  Viscount  Mountjoy, 
Lord  Viscount  Kingsland,  and  other  persons  of 
quality  of  both  sexes  supported  the  different 
characters.  The  room  was  fitted  oat  in  the 
most   elegant  stile.       All   the   chambers   and 


THE  DISTRESSED  MOTHER  147 

passages  were  illuminated  with  wax.  There 
was  a  crowded  audience  of  persons  of  the 
first  rank  in  the  kingdom,  and  the  whole  was 
conducted  with  the  greatest  regularity  and 
decorum." 

We  hear  again  and  again  all  through  the 
annals  of  the  stage  in  that  century  that  the 
Distrest  Mother  was  selected  by  some  famous 
actor  or  actress  for  a  farewell  appearance  or 
for  some  other  important  performance.  Hitch- 
cock tells  us  that  Mrs.  Gibber  bade  adieu  to 
Ireland  in  the  character  of  Andromache,  and 
that  Peg  Woffington,  in  1751,  almost  forty 
years  after  the  first  representation  of  the 
tragedy,  chose  for  her  debut  in  Ireland  one 
tragic  role  and  one  comic  one,  Andromache 
being  the  tragic  one.  The  same  historian 
writes  that,  in  1759,  "Mr.  Barry  (the  great 
star  of  the  company  then  visiting  Dublin) 
judiciously  reserved  himself  till  the  season  was 
somewhat  advanced.  On  Saturday,  November 
17,  he  came  out  with  the  utmost  force  and  eclat 
in  Orestes  in  the  Distrest  Mother.  The  play 
was  commanded  by  the  Lord  Lieutenant.  The 
characters  were  new  dressed.  No  expense  was 
spared  and  every  circumstance   concurred  to 


148    CORNEILLE  AND  RACINE  IN  ENGLAND 

render  the  house  uncommonly  fashionable  and 
brilliant."  This  sounds  like  a  reminiscence  of 
the  cordial  welcome  by  Dublin  to  Mrs.  Philips's 
Pompey.  Five  years  later,  in  1764,  Barry  and 
a  strong  company  presented  the  play  in  Cork. 

But  it  must  not  be  supposed  that  the  Distrest 
Mother  was  like  those  dry  works  supposed  to  be 
improving  and  played  only  in  the  provinces, 
while  the  capital  passes  them  by  as  out-of-date. 
A  long  list  of  performances  given  through  each 
winter  at  Covent  Garden  and  Drury  Lane 
shows  that  London  still  admired  Philips's 
work  as  a  masterpiece,  and  the  very  consider- 
able number  of  times  it  was  chosen  for  benefit 
nights  and  first  appearances  gives  proof  that 
actors  and  managers  of  the  best  theatres  in 
the  country  were  convinced  of  its  popularity 
with  the  theatre-going  public. 

In  1726  Booth  made  his  first  appearance 
after  a  serious  illness,  in  the  character  of 
Pyrrhus,  and  was  rapturously  received,  so 
Theophilus  Gibber  tells  us.  In  1736  Gibber 
chose  the  play  for  his  benefit.  In  1744  the 
Distrest  Mother  was  chosen,  as  the  playbills  of 
the  time  announce,  "At  the  Desire  of  several 
Persons  of   Distinction,"  for  the  reappearance 


THE  DISTRESSED  MOTHER  149 

of  Mrs.  Roberts,  after  an  absence  of  twelve 
years  from  the  stage,  and  for  the  first  appear- 
ance of  Miss  Jenny  Gibber  in  the  tragic  role  of 
Hermione.  In  1750  Mrs.  Woffington  played 
Hermione  at  Covent  Garden  "  for  the  first  time 
of  her  attempting  that  role,"  while  Mrs.  Gibber 
played  Andromache,  —  a  combination  which 
must  have  been  well-nigh  irresistible.  In 
1755  Mrs.  Graham  chose  this  play  for  her 
first  appearance.  But  as  a  climax  to  this 
series  of  benefits  and  first  appearances  there 
came  what  must  have  been  a  most  notable  per- 
formance of  the  play  in  1782  (seventy  years 
after  it  was  written),  when  Mrs.  Siddons  chose 
it  for  her  benefit  and  made  it  a  special  occasion 
by  announcing  that  at  the  end  of  the  play 
Mrs.  Siddons  "will  deliver  a  poetical  address 
written  by  herself  in  the  course  of  which  she 
will  produce  to  the  audience  three  reasons  for 
her  quitting  the  stage."  ^  Mrs.  Summers,  a 
fellow-actress,  says  that  her  three  children  were 
the  three  reasons,  and  that  they  were  kept  in 
her  dressing  room  till  they  were  wanted  on  the 
stage  :   not  even  the  actors  knowing  what  she 

1  This  only  refers  to  her  leaving  Bath  to  go  up  to  London 
for  her  permanent  engagement. 


160    CORNEILLE  AND  RACINE  IN  ENGLAND 

meant  to  do.  Andromache  was  one  of  Mrs. 
Siddons's  most  favored  roles  and  was  very  fre- 
quently chosen  for  her  benefits.  In  1786  she 
acted  Hermione  for  the  first  time,  also  at  a 
benefit. 

Baker  (^Biographica  Bramatica,  1st  ed.),  writ- 
ing in  1764,  says  of  the  Distrest  Mother,  "  It  is 
at  this  time  a  Standard  of  Entertainment  at 
both  Theatres,  being  generally  repeated  several 
times  in  the  course  of  every  season,  and  will 
perhaps  ever  continue  to  be  a  stock  Play  on  the 
lists  of  the  Theatres."  Genest,^  speaking  with 
his  usual  grudging  recognition  of  anything 
French,  says  in  1820,  "  This  is  an  indifferent 
Tragedy,  and  yet  it  has  continued  on  the  acting 
list  till  the  present  times." 

The  reproach  of  artificiality  in  the  first  suc- 
cess of  this  piece  and  the  claim  that  it  owed  its 
fame  entirely  to  the  efforts  of  a  small  literary 
clique  must  be  largely  modified  when  this 
record  is  surveyed.  It  may  be  true  that  the 
first-night  audience  was  packed  with  friends  of 
the  author  and  was  predisposed  in  his  favor  by 
the  Spectator.  But  could  this  have  exerted  any 
infiuence  on  Kemble,  when  in  1803  he  selected 
1  Some  Account,  Vol.  IX.  p.  566. 


THE  DISTRESSED  MOTHER  151 

the  play  for  a  special  performance  in  Bath? 
It  cannot  be  denied  that  the  Spectator  was 
a  great  power  when  the  tragedy  first  appeared, 
and  that  the  public  may  have  been  urged  by 
this  influence  to  simulate  an  admiration  not 
wholly  genuine.  But  could  this  have  forced 
Mrs.  Siddons  to  choose  the  tragedy  for  her 
benefits,  as  she  did  again  and  again  ?  It  is  im- 
possible to  deny  the  conclusion  brought  out  by 
a  study  of  the  facts.  A  tragedy  does  not  live 
for  a  century  on  borrowed  vitality.  Inflated 
and  unnatural  as  it  may  seem  to  us  now, 
Ambrose  Philips's  play  must  have  appealed 
to  a  well-defined  and  sincere  taste  of  the 
eighteenth  century,  and  its  popularity  was  a 
solid  one. 

To  go  back  to  the  first  of  this  long  series  of 
representations  —  it  occurred  at  the  most  favor- 
able time  for  such  a  production,  when  the  enthu- 
siasm for  classic  tragedy  was  in  all  the  strength 
of  its  first  vigor  —  only  the  year  before  Cato  was 
given.  The  cast  of  actors  presenting  the  play 
was  the  best  that  could  be  gathered  together. 
George  Powell  (the  Spectator's  favorite)  played 
Orestes,  and  Booth  was  Pyrrhus.  Of  his  inter- 
pretation of  this  character  the  Spectator  (March 


152    COENEILLE  AND  RACINE  IN  ENGLAND 

24, 1712)  says,  "  Whoever  has  seen  Booth  in  the, 
character  of  Pyrrhus  march  to  his  throne  to 
receive  Orestes  is  convinced  that  Majesty  and 
great  Conceptions  are  expressed  in  the  very 
step.  .  .  .  No  other  man  could  perform  that 
Incident  as  well  as  he  does."  Pylades  was  played 
by  Mill,  a  utility  actor  of  considerable  reputa- 
tion. Andromache  was  created  by  Mrs.  Old- 
field,  who  needs  no  introduction,  and  Hermione 
was  taken  by  Mrs.  Porter,  the  tragedy  queen 
who  for  many  years  enjoyed  so  well-deserved 
an  admiration.  A  more  competent  company 
could  scarcely  be  found,  and  the  applause  which 
followed  their  work  is  not  surprising. 

We  have  a  detailed  account  of  how  the  play 
was  presented  by  this  first  company,  in  the 
Spectator  for  March  25,  1712 ;  in  a  pamphlet 
—  A  Modest  survey  of  that  Celebrated  Tragedy^ 
the  Distrest  Mother^  so  often  and  so  highly  ap- 
plauded by  the  Ingenious  Spectator;  —  and  in 
various  stage  histories  and  biographies.  We 
learn  that  Mrs.  Porter  was  immensely  admired 
as  Hermione,  and  that  Mill's  Pylades  became 
one  of  his  favorite  characters.  The  Spectator 
takes  Sir  Roger  de  Coverley  to  the  theatre  "  for 
the  first  time  these  twenty  years,"  drawn  thither 


THE  DISTKESSED  MOTHER  153 

by  the  great  fame  of  the  new  tragedy.  His 
comments  are  reported  by  Addison,  and  are 
most  entertaining.  "Upon  the  entering  of 
Pyrrhus  the  knight  told  me  he  did  not  be- 
lieve the  king  of  France  himself  had  a  better 
strut : "  another  tribute  to  the  majesty  of 
Booth.  Sir  Roger  was  sure  "Andromache 
would  never  have  Pyrrhus,  and  added,  '  You 
can't  imagine,  sir,  what  it  is  to  have  to  do  with 
a  widow.' "  He  is  very  much  surprised  at  the 
clear  and  simple  language,  which  was  of  course 
one  of  the  features  of  classic  tragedy  which 
Addison  was  most  eager  to  emphasize.  "  Should 
your  people  in  tragedy  always  talk  to  be  under- 
stood ?  Why,  there  is  not  a  single  sentence  in 
this  play  that  I  do  not  know  the  meaning  of  !  " 
He  was  sorry  that  Astyanax  had  not  appeared; 
"  he  should  have  been  very  glad  to  see  the  little 
boy,  who  must  needs  have  been  a  very  fine  child 
by  the  account  that  is  given  of  him."  But  he 
was  relieved  that  Pyrrhus  was  not  killed  in 
sight  of  the  audience ;  another  element  of  classic 
tragedy  which  the  classicists  were  anxious  to 
introduce.  "  He  told  me  it  was  such  a  bloody 
piece  of  work  that  he  was  glad  it  was  not  done 
on  the  stage."     Of  the  mad  scene  of  Orestes 


154    CORNEILLE  AND   RACINE  IN  ENGLAND 

he  remarks,  "  Orestes  in  his  madness  looks 
as  if  he  saw  something."  He  found  Pylades 
"a  very  sensible  man,"  and  he  says  of  him, 
"  though  he  speaks  little,  I  like  the  old  fellow 
in  whiskers  as  well  as  any  of  them !  "  The 
whole  account  is  a  very  artfully  contrived 
piece  of  special  pleading  on  Addison's  part, 
calculated  to  forestall  all  of  the  objections 
which  the  average  Englishman  would  raise  to 
tragedy  so  formal  and  Gallic  in  its  spirit. 

As  a  proof  of  success,  a  very  harsh  criticism 
is  almost  as  valuable  as  a  favorable  one.  No 
one  takes  the  pains  to  attack  a  failure.  The 
Distrest  Mother  received  this  tribute,  as  it  was 
bitterly  attacked  by  the  pamphlet  mentioned 
before,  —  a  Modest  Survey^  etc.,  —  which  fur- 
nished the  necessary  shadow  to  the  picture  of 
the  tragedy's  prosperity.  In  fifty-two  pages  oc- 
tavo an  anonymous  author,  alarmed  by  what  he 
evidently  considers  an  overwhelming  tendency 
to  Gallicize  the  English  stage,  attacks  the  Dis- 
trest Mother  and  all  that  it  stands  for.  He 
says  that  the  eminently  moral  character  of  the 
play  has  undoubtedly  much  to  do  with  its 
success  as  compared  with  the  failure  of  the 
Phoedra.  But  with  that  observation  any  ap- 
proach to  praise  ends. 


THE  DISTRESSED  MOTHER  155 

He  refuses  all  merit  to  Philips's  share  in  the 
work,  saying  that  his  diction  is  bald,  mean,  and 
poor.  It  is  curious  to  see  what  they  term  the 
"  simplicity "  of  the  style  praised  by  Addison 
and  attacked  by  others,  when  it  seems  to  mod- 
ern readers  the  reverse  of  either  simplicity  or 
clarity.  The  author  of  the  pamphlet  regrets 
also  the  absence  of  ornaments  to  the  style  in 
the  way  of  high-flown  and  lengthy  metaphors 
and  sharp  turns  of  wit.  He  complains  that  the 
author  of  the  play  has  been  niggardly  with  his 
store  of  good  things  and  has  "beaten  his  wit 
thin  "  to  make  the  quantity  of  it  seem  more. 
But  it  is  against  the  play  itself  that  he  launches 
his  sharpest  shafts.  Andromache  seems  to  him 
the  most  absurd  and  illogical  of  characters. 
"  Why,"  he  inquires,  "  should  she  not  marry 
Pyrrhus  ?  "  He  was  a  good  man,  very  much  in 
love  with  her,  and  willing  to  do  well  by  her 
son.  He  for  his  part,  if  he  had  been  Hector, 
would  have  been  very  much  provoked  by  this 
foolish  sentimentality.  What  better  could  she 
expect  than  to  be  well  taken  care  of  all  her  life, 
and  see  her  son  refounding  the  Trojan  line  ? 
As  for  Andromache's  plan  of  marrying  Pyrrhus 
and  killing  herself  at  once,  he  denounces  it  as 


156    CORNEILLE  AND  RACINE  IN  ENGLAND 

the  most  shameless  of  cheats.  His  British  com- 
mercial sense  of  honor  revolts  against  Pyrrhus, 
paying  so  high  a  price  for  what  he  doesn't  get. 
"  Andromache  is  a  romantic,  vaporing  fool,  as 
well  as  a  heartless  cheat  and  jilt."  As  to 
Pyrrhus,  he  was  a  fool  who  deserved  no  better 
fate,  for  so  exposing  himself  on  his  wedding 
day  that  Orestes  could  kill  him  and  get  safely 
away.  The  pamphleteer  proposes  a  modifica- 
tion in  the  plot,  i.e.  that  Andromache  should 
have  a  visit  from  Hector's  ghost,  commanding 
her  to  stop  her  high-flown  hysterics,  to  marry 
Pyrrhus  like  a  sensible  woman,  and  thank  her 
fate  for  the  chance.  At  the  close  the  pam- 
phleteer disclaims  any  pique  or  personal  feeling 
as  the  motive  of  this  attack  :  "  An  honest  and 
hearty  Warmth  for  the  Honour  of  the  British 
Poetry  in  Discouragement  of  all  French  impor- 
tations of  this  kind  unless  better  refined  and 
cleaned  from  their  original  Dross  and  Rubbish; 
as  justly  disclaiming  that  everything  that 
glistered  in  France  should  pass  for  current  in 
England. "  The  warmth  of  this  attack  is  a  strong 
tribute  to  the  success  of  the  play.  The  fear  of 
a  French  invasion  of  the  English  stage  is  only 
shown  when  adaptations  are  receiving  consider- 
able popular  favor. 


THE  DISTRESSED  MOTHER  157 

One  of  the  most  interesting  things  in  the 
history  of  this  play  is  the  immense  popularity 
of  the  epilogue,  which  is  said  to  be  one  of  the 
most  successful  ever  written  in  English.  It 
was  ostensibly  written  by  Eustace  Budgell,  but 
probably  by  Addison  himself,  and  was  the  occa- 
sion of  a  war  of  words  in  the  Spectator  which 
lasted  through  several  numbers.  First  came  a 
letter  criticising  very  severely  the  light  tone 
of  the  epilogue,  and  saying  that  the  effect  of 
the  whole  tragedy, "  which  had  gradually  worked 
my  soul  up  to  the  highest  pitch,"  was  totally 
destroyed  by  the  mockery  of  Mrs.  Oldfield  as 
she  recited  the  epilogue.  Three  days  later 
came  another  letter  (ostensibly  from  another 
correspondent)  from  Addison  himself,  defend- 
ing his  work  with  the  utmost  warmth.  It 
begins,  "I  am  amazed  to  find  an  epilogue  at- 
tacked in  your  last  Friday's  paper  which  has 
been  so  generally  applauded  by  the  town  and 
received  such  honor  as  was  never  before  given 
to  any  in  an  English  theatre.  The  audience 
would  not  permit  Mrs.  Oldfield  to  go  off  the 
stage  the  first  night  till  she  had  repeated  it 
twice  ;  the  second  night  the  noise  of  encoring 
was    as   loud   as    before,    and   she  was    again 


158    CORNEILLE  AND  RACINE   IN  ENGLAND 

obliged  to  speak  it  twice;  the  third  night  it 
was  still  called  for  a  second  time,  and,  in  short, 
contrary  to  all  other  epilogues,  which  are  dropped 
after  the  first  representation,  this  has  already- 
been  repeated  nine  times."  He  goes  on  to  say 
that  all  tradition  is  on  his  side,  and  quotes  the 
far  too  gay  epilogues  of  Dryden  and  other 
Restoration  poets  ;  also  the  epilogue  to  Phcedra 
and  Hippolitus^  where  he  had  the  authority  of 
Matt  Prior  back  of  him.  More  than  this,  he 
cites  the  French  custom  of  having  a  merry 
little  farce  after  a  tragedy,  and  says  that  for  his 
part  he  is  not  ill  pleased  to  be  sent  home  in  a 
good  humor  instead  of  weeping  over  the  fatal 
tangle  of  passions  presented  to  him.  It  will 
perhaps  be  easier  to  form  an  accurate  judgment 
on  this  epilogue  so  much  discussed  if  it  is 
reproduced. 

I  hope  you'll  own  that  with  becoming  art 
I've  played  my  game  and  topped  the  widow's  part. 
My  spouse,  poor  man,  could  not  live  out  the  play, 
But  died  commodiously  on  his  wedding  day ; 
While  T,  his  relict,  made  at  one  bold  fling, 
Myself  a  princess,  and  young  Sty  a  king. 

You,  ladies,  who  protract  a  lover's  pain, 
And  hear  your  servants  sigh  whole  years  in  vain; 
Which  of  you  all  would  not  on  marriage  venture, 


THE   DISTRESSED  MOTHER  169 

Might  she  so  soon  upon  her  jointure  enter? 

'Twas  a  strange  'scape !     Had  Pyrrhus  lived  till  now, 
I  had  been  finely  hampered  in  my  vow. 
To  die  by  one's  own  hand  and  fly  the  charms 
Of  love  and  life  in  a  young  monarch's  arms. 
'Twere  a  hard  fate  —  ere  I  had  undergone  it, 
I  might  have  took  one  night  —  to  think  upon  it. 
But  why,  you'll  say,  was  all  this  grief  expressed 
For  a  first  husband  long  since  laid  to  rest? 
Why  so  much  coldness  to  my  kind  protector  ? 
Ah,  ladies,  had  you  known  the  good  man  Hector  I 
Homer  will  tell  you,  (or  I'm  misinformed) 
That,  when  enrag'd,  the  Grecian  camp  he  stormed, 
To  break  the  tenfold  barriers  of  the  gate 
He  threw  a  stone  of  such  prodigious  weight 
As  no  two  men  could  lift,  not  even  of  those 
Who  in  that  age  of  thundering  mortals  rose; 
It  would  have  sprain'd  a  dozen  modern  beaus. 

At  length,  howe'er,  I  laid  my  weeds  aside. 
And  sunk  the  widow  in  the  well-dressed  bride. 
In  you  it  still  remains  to  grace  the  play, 
And  bless  with  joy  my  coronation  day ; 
Take,  then,  ye  circles  of  the  brave  and  fair, 
The  fatherless  and  widow  to  your  care. 


It  seems  probable  that  the  enthusiasm  which 
greeted  this  somewhat  heavy-handed  joking 
after  seeing  a  version  of  Andromaque  was  of 
the  same  variety  as  Pepys's  joy  at  the  Dutch 
clowns,  after  Horace.  However  that  may  be, 
the  epilogue  continued  famous  almost  as  long 


160    CORNEILLE  AND  RACINE  IN  ENGLAND 

as  the  play  did,  and  as  late  as  1770  playbills 
announce  that  after  the  representation  of  the 
Distrest  Mother  the  "  famous  original  epilogue  " 
would  be  given. 

After  all  these  evidences  of  unusual  success 
which  the  tragedy  obtained,  one  turns  with  a 
lively  interest  to  the  consideration  of  the  work 
of  Mr.  Philips  itself  to  see  what  sort  of  a  transla- 
tion it  was  which  aroused  such  enthusiasm  and 
held  it  so  long.     (Act  I.  Scene  2.) 

Orestes.  Before  I  speak  the  message  of  the  Greeks 
Permit  me,  sir,  to  glory  in  the  Title 
Of  their  Ambassador :  since  I  behold 
Troy's  vanquisher  and  great  Achilles'  son. 
Nor  does  the  Son  rise  short  of  such  a  Father. 
If  Hector  fell  by  him  Troy  fell  by  you. 
But  what  your  Father  never  would  have  done, 
You  do.    You  cherish  the  Remains  of  Troy 
And,  by  an  ill-timed  Pity,  keep  alive 
The  dying  embers  of  a  ten-years  War.^ 

^  Orestes.  Avant  que  tous  les  Grecs  vous  parlent  par 
ma  voix, 
Souffrez  que  j'ose  ici  me  flatter  de  leur  choix 
Et  qu'  a  vos  yeux.  Seigneur,  je  montre  quelque  joie 
De  voir  le  fils  d'Achille  et  le  vainqueur  de  Troie. 
Oui,  comme  ses  exploits,  nous  admirons  vos  coups : 
Hector  tomba  sous  lui,  Troie  expira  sous  vous ; 
Et  vous  avez  montre  par  une  heureuse  audace, 
Que  le  fils  seul  d'Achille  a  pu  remplir  sa  place. 


THE  DISTRESSED  MOTHER  161 

This  is  a  very  good  example  of  Philips's 
style,  correct,  dignified,  quite  close  to  the 
French  yet  losing  almost  entirely  the  lift  and 
emphasis  of  the  original.  It  can  almost  never 
be  said  that  he  has  failed  to  render  the  mean- 
ing of  a  phrase  of  Racine's,  and  almost  as 
seldom  that  he  has  really  secured  the  same 
quality,  or  even  one  of  his  own  which  is  of  the 
same  nature  as  Racine's  elegant  and  polished 
perfection  of  wording.     (Same  scene.) 

Pyrrhus.  No!     Let  them  come;  since  I  was  born  to 
wage 
Eternal  Wars.    Let  them  now  turn  their  Arms 
On  him  who  conquered  for  them ;  Let  them  come 
And  in  Epirus  seek  another  Troy 
'Twas  thus  they  recompens'd  my  Godlike  Sire  ; 
Thus  was  Achilles  thank'd ;  But,  Prince,  remember 
Their  black  Ingratitude  then  cost  them  dear. 

Orestes.   Shall  Greece  then  find  a  Rebel  Son  in  Pyr- 
rhus? 

Pyrrhus.  Have  I  then  conquered  to  depend  on  Greece  ? 

Orestes.   Hermione  will  sway  your  Soul  to  Peace 
And  mediate  'twixt  her  Father  and  yourself.^ 

Mais  ce  qu'il  n'eut  point  fait,  la  Grece  avec  douleur 
Vous  voit  du  sang  troyen  relever  le  malheur, 
Et  vous  laissant  toucher  d'une  pitie  funeste, 
D'une  guerre  si  longue  entretenir  le  reste. 

^  Pyrrhus.   Non,  non.     J'y  consens  avec  joie  : 
Qu'il  s  cherchent  dans  I'Epire  une  seconde  Troie ; 

M 


or 


162    CORNEILLE  AND  RACINE  IN  ENGLAND 

In  shorter  speeches  like  these,  Philips  is 
closer  to  the  French  than  in  the  long  declam- 
atory ones  where  he  picks  and  chooses,  from 
perhaps  forty  lines,  twenty-five  for  reproduc- 
tion. This  shortening  of  speeches  is  really  the 
most  serious  change  which  he  introduces,  and  is 
a  very  sensible  one  for  a  play  which  is  to  be 
actually  performed.  Many  very  long  speeches 
are  cut  in  presenting  them  at  the  Theatre 
Frangais  to-day.  As  far  as  adapting  in  the 
usual  English  sense,  there  is  very  little  of  it. 
The  scenes  and  acts  are  arranged  in  very  much 
the  same  order  and  with  very  much  the  same 
contents  as  in  the  original  except  for  the  abbre- 
viating already  referred  to.  It  could  scarcely 
be  expected  that  an  eighteenth-century  trans- 

Qu'ils  confondent  leur  haine  et  ne  distinguent  plus 
Le  sang  qui  les  fit  vaincre  et  celui  des  vaincus. 
Aussi  bien  ce  n'est  pas  la  premiere  injustice 
Dont  la  Grece  d'Achille  a  paye  le  service. 
Hector  en  profita,  seigneur  ;  et  quelque  jour 
Son  fils  en  pourrait  bien  profiter  k  son  tour. 

Oreste.   Ainsi  la   Grece    en   vous    trouve   un  enfant 
rebelle  ? 

Pyrrhus.  Et  je  n'ai  done  vaincu  que  pour  dependre 
d'elle? 

Oreste.   Hermione,  Seigneur,  arretera  vos  coups ; 
Ses  yeux  s'opposeront  entre  son  pere  et  vous. 


THE  DISTRESSED  MOTHER  163 

lator,  however,  could  keep  the  ending  exactly  as 
he  found  it.  Philips  yielded  to  temptation  to 
make  as  much  of  a  happy  ending  as  could 
be  possible  after  Pyrrhus'  death,  by  bringing 
Andromache  once  more  on  the  scene  to  take 
possession,  visibly,  of  her  new  power  as  queen 
and  to  be  reunited  to  her  son.  She  is  overcome 
with  grief  for  the  death  of  Pyrrhus,  which  is 
inconsistent  but  spectacular,  and  proclaims  that 
she  will  mourn  for  him  till  her  death.  The 
arrival  of  the  young  prince,  her  son,  is  an- 
nounced, and  the  play  ends  with  a  moralizing 
rhymed  sextet  in  which  the  author  of  the 
Pastorals  is  clearly  discerned  : 

Though  plunged  in  Ills  and  exercised  in  Care 
Yet  never  let  the  noble  mind  despair 
.    When  prest  by  dangers  and  beset  with  Foes 
The  Gods  their  timely  Succour  interpose ; 
And  when  our  Vertue  sinks,  o'erwhelmed  with  Grief 
By  unforeseen  Expedients  bring  relief. 

This  adds  one  more  confusion  to  her  grief  for 
the  death  of  Pyrrhus. 

Philips  is  a  little  too  complacent  in  his 
treatment  of  the  really  stirring  scenes  of  this 
tragedy.     He  has  no  idea  of  faithfully  repro- 


164    CORNEILLE  AND  RACINE  IN  ENGLAND 

ducing  every  detail  as  does  Mrs.  Philips  with 
PompSe.  He  is  a  poet  on  his  own  account,  and 
has  great  confidence  in  his  power  to  treat  a 
situation  quite  as  well  as  Racine.  Take,  for 
example,  the  scene  after  the  murder  of  Pyrrhus 
by  Orestes  and  the  Greeks.  Here,  if  anywhere, 
a  really  faithful  and  judicious  translator  would 
have  clung  to  his  text  as  closely  as  he  could, 
in  an  effort  to  render  the  matchless  perfection 
of  his  author.     This  is  what  Philips  does  : 

Hermione.  Peace,  Monster,  Peace  !  —  Go  tell  thy  horrid 
tale 
To  Savages  and  howl  it  out  in  Desarts. 
Wouldst  thou  impute  to  me  thy  monstrous  Guilt  ? 
Me  wouldst  thou  make  the  Accomplice  of  thy  Crimes? 
Hence  to  thy  Greeks !  and  boast  thy  foul  exploits  ! 
My  Soul  abhors  them!     I  disclaim  the  deed ! 
Be  gone  !    I  know  thee  not !     Thou  fell  Barbarian ! 
What  had  he  done?      What  could  provoke  thy  Mad- 
ness 
To  assassinate  so  great,  so  brave  a  Man, 
Who  set  thee  on  ? 

Orestes.  Grant  me  Patience,  heaven ! 

With  your  own  lips  did  you  not  curse  the  Tyrant, 
Pronounce  his  Death  and  urge  me  to  destroy  him  ? 

Hermione.  What  if  transported  by  my  boundless  Pas- 
sion 
I  could  not  bear  to  see  him  wed  another  ? 
Were  you  to  obey  a  jealous  Woman's  Phrenzy? 
You  should  have  dived  into  my  most  inmost  thoughts ; 


THE  DISTRESSED   MOTHER  165 

My  Heart  though  full  of  Rage  was  free  from  Malice ; 
And  all  my  anger  was  excess  of  Love.^ 

This  is  very  energetic  and  not  without  real 
fire,  but  it  is  unfortunate  that  it  did  not  occur 
to  Philips  that  Racine  had  regulated  all  the  de- 
tails of  the  scene  better  than  he  could.  The 
situation  itself  is  so  stirring  that  a  well-written 
version  of  it  like  this  must  have  made  a  deep 
impression  even  if  it  is  not  a  faithful  render- 
ing of  the  original.     It  can  be  seen  all  through 

^  Hermione.  Tais-toi,  perfide, 

Et  n'impute  q'k  toi  ton  ISche  parricide. 
Va  f aire  chez  tes  Grecs  admirer  ta  fureur, 
Va,  je  la  desavoue,  et  tu  me  fais  horreur. 
Barbare,  qu'as  tu  fait  ?    Avec  quelle  f urie 
As-tu  tranche  le  cours  d'une  si  belle  vie ! 
Avez-vous  pu,  cruels,  I'immoler  aujourd'hui 
Sans  que  tout  votre  sang  se  soulevat  pour  lui? 
Mais,  parle ;  de  son  sort  qui  t'a  rendu  I'arbitre  ? 
Pourquoi  Tassassiner?    Qu'a-t-il  f  ait  ?    Aqueltitre? 
Quitel'adit? 

Oreste.  Oh  Dieux  !     Quoi !  ne  m'avez  vous  pas 

Vous-meme,  ici,  tantdt,  ordonne  son  trepas? 

Hermione.  Ah !  f allait-il  en  croire  une  amante  insensde  ? 
Ne  devais-tu  pas  lire  au  fond  de  ma  pensee? 
Et  ne  voyais-tu  pas,  dans  mes  emportements 
Que  mon  cceur  dementait  ma  bouche  k  tons  moments  ? 
Quand  je  I'aurais  voulu,  f allait-il  y  souscrire  ? 


166    CORNEILLE   AND  RACINE  IN  ENGLAND 

the  tragedy  that  a  trained  hand  and  a  real 
talent  are  at  work  even  if  there  be  no  spark 
of  genius  which  would  have  fired  the  whole 
into  a  production  worthy  in  all  respects  of  the 
great  original. 


XI.     COLLEY  GIBBER 

The  success  of  Ambrose  Philips  seems  to 
have  encouraged  Gibber  to  try  his  hand  at 
translating  and  adapting  a  French  play.  As 
the  author  of  the  Distrest  Mother  had  chosen 
the  most  popular  work  of  Racine,  Gibber, 
nothing  daunted,  selected  Gorneille's  master- 
piece. He  brought  on  the  stage,  on  November 
28, 1712,  an  adaptation  of  the  Cid  under  the  title 
of  The  Heroieh  Daughter  or  Ximena.  Gon- 
trary  to  the  usual  custom  of  the  day  this  play 
was  not  printed  till  nine  years  after  its  first 
appearance.  It  was  revived  with  considerable 
success  in  1718,  with  an  admirable  cast.  Mrs. 
Oldfield  played  the  title  role  then,  and  prob- 
ably created  it  in  1712.  The  year  after  its  first 
appearance  she  chose  it  for  her  benefit.  This 
would  seem  to  indicate  that  she  liked  the  role, 
and  that  the  play  had  been  received  with  con- 
siderable favor  at  its  first  representation.  In- 
deed it  was  played  eight  times,  what  was  con- 
sidered then  a  run  of  some  length. 
167 


168    CORNEILLE  AND  RACINE  IN  ENGLAND 

The  first  edition  of  The  Heroich  Daughter  at- 
tracted a  vast  deal  of  attention  from  a  cause  in 
no  wise  connected  with  the  adaptation  itself,  but 
with  a  most  indiscreet  remark  which  the  heed- 
less Gibber  introduced  into  his  Epistle  of  Dedi- 
cation^ addressed  to  Sir  Richard  Steele.  As 
the  stir  which  this  preface  made  brought  The 
Heroich  Daughter  much  more  prominently  to  the 
attention  of  the  public  than  its  merits  alone 
could  have  done,  it  may  be  well  to  note 
briefly  the  main  points  of  the  controversy. 
They  will  serve,  moreover,  as  examples  of  the 
sort  of  strife  into  which  the  translations  of  this 
time  were  ushered. 

Gibber,  in  the  course  of  his  compliments  to 
Steele,  spoke  with  much  gratitude  of  the  favor 
which  the  Spectator  and  the  Tatler  had  shown 
the  stage.  This  passage  is  interesting  as  show- 
ing the  real  practical  influence  of  the  literary 
men  of  that  day,  and  as  bringing  out  the  fact 
that  the  admiration  of  Mr.  Addison  for  a 
tragedy  like  the  Distrest  Mother  meant  more 
actually  to  the  managers  of  that  day  than  the 
admiration  of  a  man  of  letters  of  similar  stand- 
ing would  mean  now.  This  difference  ought 
not  to  be   forgotten  in   attempting   to  under- 


COLLEY  GIBBER  169 

stand  the  situation.  "  How  often  have  we 
known  the  most  elegant  Audiences  drawn 
together  at  a  Day's  warning  by  the  Influence 
or  Warrant  of  a  single  Tatler  in  a  season  where 
our  best  Endeavors  without  it  could  not  defray 
the  charge  of  the  Performance."  Not  willing 
to  leave  the  compliment  as  it  was,  he  wished  to 
sharpen  it  by  showing  that  to  Steele  alone  was 
due  the  credit  of  those  papers,  and  put  Addi- 
son completely  out  of  the  question  by  saying 
that,  when  he  is  spoken  of  as  part  editor  of  the 
Spectator^  Steele  might  well  exclaim  with  Mark 
Antony : 

Fool  that  I  was !  upon  my  eagle  wings 

I  bore  this  Wren  'till  I  was  tired  with  soaring 

And  now  he  mounts  above  me ! 

Any  one  who  is  familiar  with  the  feeling  of 
that  period  can  imagine  the  burst  of  indignant 
protest  with  which  this  comparison  was  re- 
ceived by  the  readers  of  The  Heroich  Daughter. 
Squibs  and  cuts  at  both  Gibber  and  Steele 
appeared  in  various  forms.  One  coming  out 
in  Misfs  Journal  for  October  31,  1719,  will 
serve  as  a  good  example  of  what  poor  CoUey 
was  forced  to  endure : 

"  Mr.  Gibber  the  player,  having  newly  dedi- 


170    CORNEILLE  AND  RACINE  IN  ENGLAND 

cated  to  Sir  Richard  Steele  a  translation  of  the 
Oid^  a  Tragedy  written  by  the  famous  Mr.  Cor- 
neille,  wherein  he  very  modestly  confesses  that 
he  hath  infinitely  outdone  the  French  orig- 
inal ;  and  that  the  late  celebrated  Mr.  Addison 
owed  all  his  reputation  to  Steele,  the  former  of 
whom  he  compares  to  a  Wren  and  the  latter  to 
an  Eagle  ;  the  following  lines  were  written  off 
Hand  by  one  who  has  an  odd  Fancy  that  Gibber 
and  Steele  are  inferior  to  Corneille  and  Addi- 
son ;  which  you  may  if  you  are  of  the  same 
Opinion  insert  in  your  next  Journal. 

"  Written  in  Gibber's  Heroic  Daughter  dedi- 
cated to  Sir  R.  Steele  : 

"  Thus  Colley  Gibber  greets  his  Partner  Steele 
See  here,  Sir  Knight,  how  I've  outdone  Corneille  I 
See  here  how  I  my  Patron  to  inveigle 
Make  Addison  a  Wren  and  you  an  Eagle  1 
Safe  to  their  silent  Shades  we  bid  defiance 
For  living  Dogs  are  better  than  dead  Lions  !  ** 

This  sort  of  running  fire  was  kept  up  for 
months,  until  Steele  took  a  step  which  must 
have  hurt  Gibber  more  than  anything  else.  On 
January  2,  1720,  there  appeared  the  first  num- 
ber of  The  Theatre^  —  to  he  continued  every 
Tuesday   and    Saturday   hy   Sir  John  Edgar, 


COLLEY  GIBBER  171 

"Sir  John  Edgar"  was  a  transparent  nom 
de  plume  behind  which  Steele  hid  himself 
to  conduct  an  elaborate  defence  against  the 
storm  of  abuse  which  had  burst  on  him  as 
well  as  on  Gibber,  as  a  result  of  the  latter's 
unhappy  compliment.  "  Sir  John  Edgar " 
asseverates  with  the  greatest  solemnity  that 
he  has  reason  to  be  absolutely  sure  that 
Steele  had  no  idea  what  was  in  the  preface 
until  the  play  actually  appeared,  irrevocably 
printed,  and  so  was  not  in  the  least  to  blame 
for  it.  This  attempt  to  shift  all  the  blame 
upon  Colley's  irresponsible  shoulders  was  by  no 
means  a  success.  Steele's  incognito  was  pene- 
trated almost  at  once  by  all  who  knew  any- 
thing of  the  matter,  and  he  was  so  heartily 
berated  for  this  new  move  that  he  was  forced  to 
turn  his  Theatre  to  a  consideration  of  the  South 
Sea  Bubble^  and  finally  after  only  three  months' 
existence  to  discontinue  the  paper  altogether. 
He  did  not  take  this  step,  however,  till  the 
attention  of  the  virulent  Mr.  Dennis  was 
turned  to  the  affair;  and  when  Dennis  began 
to  express  his  mind,  all  that  had  gone  before 
seemed  like  a  war  of  compliments.  He  insti- 
tuted  at  once    the  Anti-Theatre    (Dennis  was 


172    CORNEILLE  AND  RACINE  IN  ENGLAND 

nothing  if  not  direct  in  his  attacks),  and  in  this 
periodical,  which  only  ran  during  fifteen  num- 
bers, proceeded  in  all  leisure  to  flay  poor  CoUey 
and  Steele.  He  says  they  stole  everything 
they  wrote  for  the  stage  from  the  French  with- 
out giving  credit  to  their  originals.  Of  Steele's 
Lying  Lover  he  remarks,  after  the  severest 
blame,  "  I  shall  say  no  more  of  it  than  that  it 
is  a  very  wretched  copy  of  a  very  indifferent 
original,  —  for  Comedy  was  not  the  talent  of 
Corneille."  He  says  Gibber  (of  whom  he  speaks 
as  Steele's  Champion  and  Deputy  Governor) 
"  has  made  as  bold  with  the  French  as  you,  and 
to  as  good  a  purpose  ;  he  has  bravely  turned 
the  Tartuffe  of  Moliere  out  of  ridicule.  But 
then,  to  commute  for  that  offence,  he  has  with 
equal  bravery  burlesqued  the  Cid  of  Corneille. 
We  may  guess  at  your  future  conduct  from 
your  past.  You  and  your  Deputy  Governor 
will  go  on  to  borrow  from  the  French,  and  con- 
tinue to  rail  at  them.  It  is  not  enough  for  some 
people  to  rob  unless  they  likewise  murder." 

He  quotes  from  The  Theatre :  "  You  say,  '  In 
France  they  are  delighted  either  with  low  and 
fantastical  farces  or  tedious  declamatory  Trag- 
edies.'    How  rarely  this  sounds  from  one  who 


COLLEY  GIBBER  173 

has  himself  brought  their  plays  upon  the  Eng- 
lish Stage  and  set  his  name  to  them  ;  from  one 
of  whose  Poetical  works  they  make  up  the 
better  half  ;  and  lastly,  from  one  who  in  his 
Speculations  has  so  often  and  so  fulsomely 
commended  the  bare  translations  of  those  Orig- 
inals which  he  here  decries.  How  angry  were 
you  once  with  the  Town  for  not  liking  that 
wretched  rhapsody,  the  'Phsedra'  of  Captain 
Rag  !  "  He  speaks  of  a  number  of  unpleasant 
qualities  which  he  accuses  Steele  and  Gibber  of 
having  in  common  ;  and  "  There  is  a  third  ex- 
traordinary quality,  Sir  John,  which  is  com- 
mon, to  you  and  your  Viceroy,  which  is,  that 
for  several  years  together,  both  of  you  have 
been  the  celebrated  Authors  of  other  people's 
works  !  " 

One  can  imagine  that  the  two  good-natured 
adapters  must  have  winced  under  this  virulence. 

The  noise  of  this  quarrel  was  still  resounding 
as  late  as  1792,  when  John  Bell,  the  publisher, 
put  before  an  edition  of  The  Heroick  Daughter 
the  following  note :  "  In  a  strange  dedication 
which  we  shall  not  suffer  now  to  sully  the  fame 
of  our  comic  Colley,  he  was  weak  enough  to 
treat  Steele  as  an  Eagle  and  Addison  as  a  Wren 


174    CORNEILLE  AND  RACINE  IN  ENGLAND 

—  Such  Proplianation  he  was  afterwards  wise 
enough  to  retrench  (in  later  editions  of  the 
play).  We  spare  his  memory  the  opprobrium 
of  seeing  it  here." 

Enough  has  been  said  about  this  wretched 
dispute.  The  play  itself  is  so  curious  a  pro- 
duction that  it  well  deserves  examination  for 
the  sake  of  its  peculiarities.  Gibber  devotes 
twelve  pages  to  explanation  of  the  changes  he 
has  made  in  the  play  and  it  would  be  difficult, 
without  taking  almost  as  much  space,  to  con- 
sider fully  all  his  alterations.  The  most  impor- 
tant may  be  broadly  indicated  here.  The  role 
of  the  Infanta  is  suppressed.  Gibber  remarks 
judiciously,  apropos  of  this  change,  "She  is 
always  dropping  in  like  cold  water  upon  the 
Heat  of  the  Main  Action."  And  then  hav- 
ing shown  such  shrewd  managerial  instinct,  he 
proceeds  at  once  to  nullify  the  good  effect  of  it 
by  introducing  an  absurd  secondary  character 
and  plot — one  Belzara,  formerly  betrothed 
to  Don  Sanchez,  who  after  many  tribulations,  due 
to  her  lover's  fondness  for  Ghimena,  receives  him 
from  the  hand  of  the  King  at  the  end  of  the 
play. 

A  whole  new  first  act  is  added  to  acquaint 


COLLEY  GIBBER  176 

the  audience  with  the  situation  of  Ximena  and 
Carlos  (Chimene  and  Rodrigue).  He  thinks 
"  Corneille  is  very  defective  in  this  point,"  and 
does  not  hesitate  to  express  his  opinion  in  the 
most  familiar  and  even  slangy  of  terms.  Indeed 
the  predominant  note  in  this  preface  is  the 
unbounded  complacence  and  self-assurance,  deli- 
ciously  absurd  when  one  considers  whom  he  is 
criticising  so  freely.  He  objects  to  Chim^ne's 
first  appearance  on  the  stage  in  the  original, 
thus,  "After  Chimene  is  informed  that  her 
Father  has  allowed  Rodrigue  the  Person  most 
worthy  of  her,  she  thinks  the  news  too  good  to 
be  true  and  is  still,  (though  she  can't  tell  why) 
afraid  it  will  come  to  nothing,  and  so  quaintly 
walks  off  to  as  little  purpose  as  she  came  on  ;  " 
and  further  on  he  condemns  Corneille  for 
using  what  he  calls  an  undignified  device,  as 
follows  :  "  The  King  cunningly  tells  her  that 
Rodrigue  is  dead  of  his  Wounds,  at  which  Chi- 
mene fainting.  His  Majesty  fairly  bites  her,  owns 
he  is  alive,  etc."  The  use  of  this  antiquated 
piece  of  eighteenth-century  slang  seems  curiously 
appropriate  in  a  reproof  directed  against  undue 
familiarity. 

The  prologue  is  interesting  in  its  reference 


176    CORNEILLE  AND  RACINE  IN  ENGLAND 

to  Gibber's  satisfaction   with  his  work  and  to 
the  new  interest  in  classic  tragedy : 

As  France  improved  it  from  the  Spanish  Pen 
We  hope,  now  British,  'tis  improved  again ; 
And  though  lost  Tragedy  has  long  seemed  dead, 
Yet,  having  lately  raised  her  awful  Head, 
To-night  with  Pains  and  Cost  we  humbly  strive 
To  keep  the  spirit  of  that  taste  alive. 

How  awful  a  head  Corneille's  tragedy  is  made 
to  rear  may  be  judged  when  Gibber's  ending 
is  considered ;  for  like  Edmund  Smith  he 
thought  the  French  ending  too  sad  a  one,  and 
like  him  adopted  the  most  childlike  method  of 
making  it  cheerful  —  that  is,  the  resuscitation  of 
a  character  supposed  to  be  dead.  Ximena's 
father  reappears  at  the  end  of  the  play,  not 
killed  at  all  by  Garlos,  but  wounded  enough  to 
chasten  his  spirit  and  remove  the  only  obstacle 
between  his  daughter  and  Garlos ;  who  forthwith 
rush  into  each  other's  arms  with  exclamations 
of  joy  very  like  those  of  the  earlier  Ismena  and 
Hippolitus,  rescued,  like  them,  from  the  unkind 
fate  which  had  separated  them  for  so  many 
years  till  a  British  playwright  came  upon  them. 
The  epilogue,  spoken  by  Mrs.  Oldfield  as 
Ximena,  says  of  this  extraordinary  change: 


COLLEY  GIBBER  177 

Well,  Sirs ! 

I've  come  to  tell  you  that  my  Fears  are  over, 

I've  seen  Papa  and  have  secured  my  lover. 

And,  troth,  I'm  wholly  on  our  Author's  side. 

For  had  (as  Corneille  made  him)  Gormez  died, 

My  Part  had  ended  as  it  first  begun. 

And  left  me  still  unmarryed  and  undone. 

In  spite  of  all  these  violent  changes,  there 
still  remain  many  passages  where  Gibber  admits 
that  Corneille  has  value,  and  follows  him  closely. 
His  translation  is  of  the  very  free  variety  that 
is  characteristic  of  this  period  and  this  kind  of 
writing.  The  conscientious  literary  translators 
of  the  Restoration  are  far  away  from  these 
practical  playwrights  who  adapt  their  work  to 
the  actual  stage,  to  the  English  stage,  and  to 
the  English  stage  of  that  period  with  all  its  tra- 
ditions and  conventions.  It  is  not  fair  to  judge 
the  work  of  a  man  like  Gibber  by  the  same 
standard  as  that  applicable  to  Mrs.  Philips. 
He  was  no  literary  man  by  profession,  in  spite 
of  his  Laureateship  ;  he  was  an  actor,  and  above 
all  a  manager  —  a  Henry  Irving  or  David 
Belasco  of  the  eighteenth  century.  He  had  no 
idea  of  adding  to  the  knowledge  or  broadening 
the  taste  of  the  British  public,  like  Smith  or 
Philips,    both     University    men.     He    wished 


178     CORNEILLE  AND  RACINE  IN  ENGLAND 

simply  to  produce  something  which  would 
please  the  public  and  give  good  roles  to  the 
leading  members  of  his  company.  It  is  true,  he 
was  sincerely  convinced  that  he  had  actually 
bettered  Corneille,  but  that  was  looking  at  the 
play  from  a  purely  practical  standpoint.  Gib- 
ber's own  view  of  his  practice  of  altering  plays 
may  be  seen  from  his  Letter  to  Mr.  Pope  (1742) 
when  at  last,  stung  by  the  torrent  of  abuse 
which  Pope  had  been  directing  at  him,  he  breaks 
his  good-natured  silence  and  defends  himself. 
Referring  to  Pope's 

A  past  vamp'd  future,  old  reviv'd  new  piece, 
'Twixt  Plautus,  Fletcher,  Shakespear,  and  Corneille 
Can  make  a  Gibber,  Tibbold,  or  Ozell ; 

Gibber  says  in  the  first  place  that  several  of 
his  plays  are  original,  and  then,  of  his  transla- 
tions, "  Is  a  Tailor  that  can  make  a  new  Goat 
well,  the  worse  Workman  because  he  can  mend 
an  old  one  ?  "  It  is  a  simple  practical  matter 
to  him,  quite  like  making  an  old  garment  fit 
a  new  wearer. 

The  quality  of  Gibber's  versification  when  he 
is  avowedly  translating  may  be  seen  from  a 
passage  like  this  (Act  II.  Scene  8) : 


COLLEY  GIBBER  179 

Is  he  not  dead  ?    Is  not  my  Father  kill'd  ? 
Have  not  these  Eyes  beheld  his  ghastly  Wound 
And  mixt  with  Fruitless  Tears  his  streaming  Blood  ? 
That  Blood  which  in  his  Royal  Master^s  Cause 
So  oft  has  sprung  him  thro'  your  Foes  victorious^ 
That  Blood  which  all  the  raging  Swords  of  War 
Could  never  reach,  a  young  presumptious  arm 
Has  dar'd  within  your  View  to  sacrifice.^ 

Gibber  has  evidently  found  the  famous  obscure 
darts  too  paradoxical  to  be  intelligible  to  ordi- 
nary minds,  for  he  translates  it 

At  length  the  Brightness  of  the  Moon  presents  .  .  . 

which  is  certainly  sufficiently  matter-of-fact. 

With  this  example  of  verse  The  Heroich 
Daughter  of  the  worthy  Gibber  may  be  left, 
to  take  up  a  tragedy  which  has  been  attributed 
to  him  by  nearly  all  the  authorities,  but  which 
seems  from  internal  evidence  to  be  the  work  of 
an  unknown  translator.  This  appeared  in  1713, 
and  is  a  translation  of  Cinna^  entitled  anna's 
Qonspiracy^  which  is  one  of  the  reasons  why 

1  Sire,  mon  p6re  est  mort ;  mes  yeux  ont  vu  son  sang 
Couler  a  gros  bouillons  de  son  g6n6reux  flanc  ; 
Ce  sang  qui  tant  de  fois  garantit  vos  murailles, 
Ce  sang  qui  tant  de  fois  vous  gagna  des  batailles, 
Ce  sang  qui  tout  sorti  fume  encore  de  courroux 
De  se  voir  r^pandu  pour  d'autres  que  pour  vous. 


180    CORNEILLE  AND  RACINE  IN  ENGLAND 

it  seems  scarcely  probable  that  it  is  a  work  of 
Gibber's.  With  his  keen  instinct  for  what  would 
suit  the  public,  and  his  eye  to  the  main  chance, 
he  would  not  have  been  likely  to  select  a  play 
where  there  is  no  action  of  any  kind,  where  the 
speeches  are  even  longer  than  is  usual  in  French 
tragedy,  where  the  elevation  and  dignity  of  the 
dialogue  is  unvarying,  and  where  there  is  no 
opportunity  for  spectacular  effects.  It  is  true 
that  the  prologue,  spoken  by  Gibber  and  possi- 
bly written  by  him,  speaks  with  great  contempt 
of  the  prevalent  English  taste  for  enlivening 
extras  on  the  stage,  —  funny  clowns,  gorgeous 
stage  pictures,  tableaux,  and  crowds  of  actors, 
—  but  the  prologue  was  written  for  the  play 
alone,  and  means  simply  a  justification  of  its 
anti-British  qualities. 

We  of  the  French  their  Stage  Decorum  prize, 
And  justly  such  absurdities  despise, 
Approve  their  unity  of  Place  and  Time, 
But  shun  their  trivial  Points  and  gaudy  Rhime. 

This  last  line  is  quite  in  character  with 
Gibber's  attitude  toward  the  plays  he  adopted, 
but  with  the  very  first  lines  of  the  tragedy  it- 
self it  seems  almost  certain  that  another  spirit 
is  dominant. 


COLLEY  GIBBER  181 

The  work  under  consideration  might  with 
equal  justice  be  called  a  free  translation  or  a 
very  close  adaptation.  A  speech  here  and 
there  is  shortened,  and  a  few  scenes  changed, 
but  only  a  few.  The  second  scene  of  Act  I 
shows  "  Cinna  and  Maximus  at  the  Head  of 
the  Conspirators,"  and  after  a  few  introductory 
remarks  Cinna  delivers  to  them  in  person  the 
speech  which  in  the  French  he  tells  at  second 
hand  to  Emilie.  A  few  speeches  are  added  to 
fill  up  the  scene,  which  is  not  a  long  one.  This 
is  the  most  important  change  in  the  whole 
translation,  and  is  of  course  a  change  which  in 
no  wise  affects  the  conduct  of  the  story.  This 
follows  as  closely  as  possible  the  French,  both 
the  text  and  spirit  of  the  original.  A  few  rhymed 
tags  are  put  in  at  the  end  of  scenes  which,  while 
entirely  mediocre  are  not  disagreeable  or  absurd, 
and  do  not  seem  too  much  out  of  place  in  the 
atmosphere  of  the  play.     This  is  an  example  : 

With  soothing  Baths  and  the  smooth  suppling  Oyl 
The  Body  is  refreshed,  o'ercharged  with  Toil. 
And  from  a  Friend's  Advice,  Relief  we  find 
From  Doubts  and  Terrors  that  torment  the  Mind. 

This  fidelity  to  the  text,  except  in  the  few 
instances   just   mentioned,   is   unusual    for   an 


182    CORNEILLE  AND  RACINE  IN  ENGLAND 

eighteenth-century  translation,  and  is  not  at  all 
characteristic  of  Gibber,  who  prided  himself  on 
his  skill  in  making  over  foreign  pieces  so  that 
they  would  suit  the  English  stage.  He  would 
have  seen  somewhere  in  this  story  of  imperial 
Rome  an  opportunity  for  a  great  mustering  of 
stage  soldiery  or  populace  or  courtiers,  and  he 
would  have  been  almost  certain  to  emphasize 
the  love  story  at  the  expense  of  the  political 
one.  Genest  says,^  "  This  play  has  been  ascribed 
to  Gibber  but  with  little  probability,  as  no 
reason  is  assigned  why  he  should  conceal  his 
name."  This  is  perhaps  the  most  cogent  of  all 
reasons  for  thinking  that  the  author  of  anna's 
Conspiracy  was  not  Gibber,  but  a  translator 
with  more  taste  for  good  literature  than  he, 
and  less  instinct  for  what  would  succeed  in 
England.  Gibber  was  not  given  to  concealing 
his  authorship  under  any  circumstances,  and 
he  certainly  could  not  have  hesitated  to  put 
his  name  to  a  production  which  is  on  the  whole 
more  creditable  than  most  of  his  own. 

This  translation  of  Oinna  is  rather  remark- 
able from  some  points  of  view.  It  is  through- 
out dignified,  with    few    of    the    lapses    into 

1  Some  Account,  Vol.  H.  p.  510. 


COLLEY  GIBBER  183 

triviality  which  mar  the  work  of  so  many 
translators  of  the  same  century.  But  on  the 
other  hand  at  no  place  does  it  rise  to  the 
height  of  genuine  feeling  which  is  shown  in 
occasional  bursts  in  the  work  of  contempora- 
ries. It  is  correct,  at  times  elegant,  and  always 
worthy,  but  there  is  not  much  glow  to  it.  An 
extract  will  show  the  pleasing  quality  and  also 
the  lack  of  fire  (Act  V.  Scene  2)  : 

Emilia.   With  the  same  tenderness  he  cherished  thine. 
He  was  your  Tutor  and  you  his  Assassin. 
Csesar  from  you  I  learned  the  Way  to  Guilt. 
This  difference  there  is  'Twixt  yours  and  mine, 
You  to  Ambition  sacrificed  my  Father, 
And  a  just  fury  of  Revenge  in  Me 
Would  for  his  guiltless  Blood  your  Blood  have  shed. 

Livia.   Emilia,  it  is  too  much ;  consider 
Caesar  has  well  repay'd  thy  Father's  care. 
His  Death,  with  which  thy  Memory  inflames 
Thy  Fury,  was  the  error  of  Augustus.^ 

1  Emilie.   II  61eva  la  v6tre  avec  mgme  tendresse, 
II  fut  votre  tuteur,  et  vous  son  assassin, 
Et  vous  ra'avez  au  crime  enseignfi  le  chemin, 
Le  mien  d'avec  le  v6tre  en  ce  point  seul  difffere, 
Que  votre  ambition  s'est  immol6  mon  pere, 
Et  qu'un  juste  courroux  dont  je  me  sens  bruler 
A  son  sang  innocent  voulait  vous  immoler. 

Livie.    C'est  trop,  Emilie,  arr§te  et  consid^re 
Qu'il  t'a  trop  bien  pay6  les  bienfaits  de  ton  p6re. 
Sa  mort,  dont  la  ra^moire  allume  ta  fureur 
Fut  un  crime  d' Octave  et  non  de  I'Empereur. 


184    CORNEILLE  AND  RACINE  IN  ENGLAND 

It  is  very  difficult  to  know  at  what  point  of 
view  to  place  one's  self  in  order .  to  form  a 
just  estimate  of  the  value  of  these  eighteenth- 
century  adaptations,  which  have  so  distinct  an 
atmosphere  of  their  own.  It  is  obviously  not 
fair  to  judge  them  from  the  standpoint  of  the 
particular  literary  fashion  of  our  own  day.  By 
such  a  standard  this  anna's  Conspiracy/  would 
be  at  once  condemned  as  a  tiresome,  prosy  pro- 
duction. Yet  compared  with  Gibber's  Heroich 
Daughter^  which  was  quite  a  success  in  its  day, 
this  tragedy  is  a  dignified  and  worthy  render- 
ing of  a  noble  original.  Justice  probably  lies 
between  the  two  extremes. 

The  epilogue  (spoken  by  Mrs.  Porter)  shows 
that  the  writer  was  quite  aware  of  the  unusual 
quality  of  the  tragedy  and  the  faithfulness  with 
which  the  tragic  dignity  of  the  French  was 
reproduced. 

I  laugh  to  think  now,  How  those  Wags  are  bit 
Who  gape  agog  for  wanton  turns  of  wit, 

is  the  beginning.  Further  on  there  is  the  usual 
mocking  of  the  serious  character  of  the  play, 
which  sounds  so  odd  after  these  translations 
from  the  French: 


COLLEY  GIBBER  185 

Livia  well  knew  her  Husband's  cause  was  evil 
And  told  him  that  a  tyrant,  like  the  Devil, 
To  make  mankind  his  Vassals  must  be  civil. 

The  tragedy  met  with  no  success,  as  might  be 
expected  when  all  the  conditions  are  taken  into 
consideration.  It  was  played  only  three  times, 
to  small  houses,  and  apparently  never  revived. 
It  was  published,  but  a  second  edition  was  never 
issued. 


XII.     JOHN   OZELL 

The  year  after  anna's  Conspiracy  had  made 
its  unsuccessful  appearance,  two  translations 
from  Racine  and  one  from  Corneille  were 
published,  made  by  John  Ozell.  He  was  the 
author  of  no  less  than  thirty-seven  translations, 
and  apparently  had  no  other  claim  than  this 
to  the  title  of  literary  man.  Thirty-seven 
translations  are  quite  enough  to  be  called 
a  life-work  when  they  are  all,  as  in  this  in- 
stance, translations  of  plays  —  and  it  is  not 
surprising  to  find  that  their  author  never  found 
time  for  original  work.  His  seems  to  have 
been  a  conventional,  well-ordered  life,  very 
different  from  the  exciting  careers  of  violent 
contrasts  that  fell  to  the  lot  of  most  men  of 
letters  of  that  day.  Indeed,  the  free  lances  of 
that  period  spare  no  jokes  at  him  because  on 
completing  his  education  he  went  into  a 
counting  house  where  he  was  sure  of  making 
a  living  and  where  he  continued  contentedly 
behind  a  desk  all  his  life.  This  businesslike 
186 


JOHN  OZELL  187 

turn  of  mind  they  condemned  in  most  unquali- 
fied terms  as  denoting  a  spirit  wholly  without 
fire  and  a  certain  "  meanness  of  mind "  as 
one  of  his  critics  puts  it.  There  must  in- 
deed have  been  something  very  exasperating 
in  this  quiet  prosperous  life,  with  no  care  for 
the  future,  when  viewed  from  the  standpoint 
of  the  impecunious  scribbler  and  coffee-house 
haunter  of  that  day. 

This  distaste  for  Ozell,  though  not  based  on 
the  same  grounds,  is  aroused  in  the  mind  of 
the  modern  acquaintance  of  Ozell.  A  certain 
degree  of  respect  must  be  granted  to  a  trans- 
lator of  Racine  and  Corneille,  who  in  those  days 
of  "  adaptations  "  of  anything  and  everything 
from  Shakespeare  to  a  pantomime  followed  so 
closely  the  lines  of  his  original.  His  are  almost 
the  only  real  translations  made  in  the  eigh- 
teenth century.  This  may  be  partly  due  to 
the  fact  that  his  translations  were  never  acted, 
nor  apparently  did  he  ever  expect  them  to  be. 
They  were  literary  works,  pure  and  simple,  and 
stand  alone  among  the  efforts  of  his  contempo- 
raries. There  was  on  this  account  much  less 
temptation  for  him  to  "  heighten  the  color,"  as 
a  later  translator  calls  his  own  dubious  process 


188     CORNEILLE  AND  RACINE  IN  ENGLAND 

of  alteration.  Still,  with  this  granted,  his  con- 
sistent fidelity  to  his  text  deserves  much  praise. 

Whatever  respect  may  be  due  him  on  this 
score,  however,  must  be  forfeited  on  another  — 
his  shameless  theft  of  Rutter's  Old  and  reprint 
of  it  under  his  own  name.  The  quiet  account- 
ant was  not  so  upright  as  his  respectable  and 
conventional  life  seemed  to  indicate. 

The  prominence  which  was  given  to  Racine 
by  the  acting  of  the  plays  already  mentioned, 
and  particularly  the  Distrest  Mother,  can  be 
seen  by  the  fact  that  in  1714  Ozell  had  already 
prepared  a  translation  of  Alexandre  and  of 
Britannicus,  and  had  formulated  his  scheme 
for  stealing  Rutter's  Cid.  The  "  English  Book- 
sellers Advertisement "  ^  contains  a  very  inter- 
esting account  of  how  these  two  plays  came 
to  be  printed,  and  gives  proof  of  the  prevalent 
taste  for  translated  tragedy.  "  We  have  had 
of  late  Years  so  few  new  plays  published 
in  England  especially  Tragedies,  that  ...  a 
Man  who  frequents  the  Playhouse  has  got 
'em  all  by  Heart.  My  Purpose  is  therefore  to 
present  the  World  once  a  month  with  a  couple 

1 A  sort  of  preface  to  the  volume  in  which  Alexander  and 
JBritannicus  appeared. 


JOHN  OZELL  189 

of  translated  Tragedies  stitcht  up  together. 
They  shall  be  such  as  are  in  greatest  favor  in 
France,  where  'tis  allowed  they  excel  in  that 
sort  of  Poem. 

"  The  Reception  which  some  of  their  tragedies 
have  met  with  upon  our  stage  with  little  or 
no  Alteration  but  of  Language  is  my  encour- 
agement to  get  such  of  'em  put  into  English 
as  are  not  yet  done." 

This  is  a  businesslike  plan  on  the  part  of  the 
publisher,  and  he  found  the  proper  person  for 
such  a  scheme  in  the  steady  John  Ozell,  who 
makes  as  close  and  faithful  line-for-line,  almost 
word-for-word,  translation  as  his  abilities  allow. 

The  first  speech  of  the  play  reads  thus : 

What's  this?    Whilst  Nero  does  to  sleep  indulge, 
Must  Agrippa  his  Uprising  wait ! 
Wandering  i'  the  court,  unguarded,  unattended, 
Must  Caesar's  Mother  watch  the  door  of  Caesar. 
Madam,  I  pray,  turn  back  to  your  Apart  ment.^ 

"  Whilst  Nero  does  to  sleep  indulge "  is  cer- 
tainly not  a  very  elegant  rendering  of  "  tandis 

1  Quel  ?  tandis  que  N6ron  s'abondonne  au  sommeil, 
Faut-il  que  vous  veniez  attendre  son  r6veil  ? 
Qu' errant  dans  le  palais  sans  suite  et  sans  escorte 
La  m6re  de  C6sar  veille  seule  k  sa  porte  ? 
Madame,  retournez  dans  votre  appartement. 


190     CORNEILLE  AND  RACINE  IN  ENGLAND 

que  NSron  s'dbondonne  au  sommeil^^'*  but  Ozell 
has  succeeded  in  restricting  himself  to  the  same 
number  of  words  as  Corneille,  and  this  literal 
method  of  translation  has  some  things  in  its 
favor  when  adopted  by  a  man  like  Ozell.  For 
he  had  no  poetic  talent,  and  if  he  had  allowed 
himself  more  latitude  it  is  not  probable  that 
he  would  have  hit  upon  a  phrase  good  enough 
to  make  up  for  his  expansion.  Judging  from 
his  character,  it  does  not  seem  probable  that 
he  chose  this  system  out  of  any  consciousness 
of  his  limitations;  but  from  whatever  motive 
he  used  it,  it  is  certainly  the  best  for  him. 
Conscientiousness  is  the  keynote  of  Ozell's  trans- 
lations, and  it  constitutes  their  value,  such  as 
it  is.  In  Act  I.  Scene  3,  a  speech  of  Britannicus 
has  all  Ozell's  qualities  and  his  faults  exem- 
plified in  small  space : 

What  do  I  seek  ?    Ah !    Heavens  1 
All,  all  that  I  in  Life  held  dear  is  lost. 
Lost  here !    My  Junia,  by  a  frightful  band 
Of  men  in  Arms  was  hither  dragged  by  Night. 
Ah  1  Think  what  Dread  must  seize  her  tender  Soul 
At  that  new  sight !    In  short,  she's  taken  from  me. 

1  Ce  que  je  cherche  ?    Ah  Dieux  ! 
Tout  ce  que  j'ai  perdu,  Madame,  est  en  ces  lieux. 
De  mille  affreux  soldats  Junie  environn^e 


JOHN  OZELL  191 

"  New  sight "  for  nouveau  spectacle  is  actually- 
misleading  in  its  literalness,  but  it  is  the  best 
he  could  do  at  a  close  rendering ;  and  even  the 
pathos  of  the  commonplace  "in  short"  after 
the  strong  feeling  of  the  rest  of  the  passage 
has  a  certain  justification  in  the  enfin  of  the 
French.  Ozell's  worst  absurdities  have  always 
the  slight  excuse  that  they  are  drawn  in  some 
way  from  the  French.  He  never  invents  a 
ridiculous  expression  of  his  own,  and  in  all  his 
translations  it  is  to  be  doubted  whether  one 
such  phrase  as  Gibber's  "blood  that  has  so 
often  sprung  him  through  the  walls,"  could  be 
found.  Even  so  bad  a  passage  as  this  (Act  II. 
Scene  3)  — 

Heav'n  knows,  my  Lord,  the  bottom  of  my  Thoughts 

I  don't  indulge  myself  to  empty  Glory 

I  know  to  rate  the  Greatness  of  your  Presents,^ — 

has  its  basis  in  the  original. 

S'est  vue  en  ce  palals  indignement  trainee. 
H61as  !  de  quelle  horreur  ses  timides  esprits 
A  ce  nouveau  spectacle  auront  6t6  surpris  ? 
Enfin  on  me  I'enl^ve  ! 
1  Le  del  connait,  Seigneur,  le  fond  de  ma  pens6e, 
Je  ne  me  flatte  point  d'une  gloire  insens6e ; 
Je  sais  de  vos  presents  mesurer  la  grandeur. 


192     CORNEILLE  AND  RACINE  IN  ENGLAND 

It  is  not  fair  to  choose  so  bad  an  example  of 
Ozell's  verse  as  the  last  to  show  what  he  could 
do ;  for,  as  a  rule,  it  is  entirely  inoffensive  and 
must  have  served  the  purpose  of  the  practical 
bookseller  very  well. 

The  situation  was  this.  A  number  of  people 
wished  to  read  French  tragedy  who  could  not 
read  French,  and  Ozell  gives  them  the  nearest 
approach  to  what  they  consider  the  essentials  of 
the  style  —  long  declamatory  speeches  (for  he 
never  leaves  out  a  line),  unity  of  time  and  place, 
and  a  certain  stilted  way  of  expression  that  had 
become  associated  in  their  minds  with  the  then 
fashionable  tragedy.  Ozell's  very  fidelity,  to 
whatever  absurdities  his  lack  of  talent  may  ex- 
pose him  in  practising  it,  stands  him  in  good 
stead  in  many  instances.  He  does  not  trust  his 
judgment  to  improve  upon  the  general  methods 
of  his  author,  and  rhetorical  devices  are  reflected 
in  his  pages  to  the  best  of  his  ability.  In  Act 
III.  Scene  8,  where  the  action  comes  to  a  crisis 
and  the  dialogue  between  Nero  and  Britannicus 
passes  from  the  oratorical,  lengthy  speeches  of 
most  of  the  scenes  to  a  rapid  angry  exchange 
of  single  lines  or  couplets,  Ozell  copies  as  well 
as  he  can  this  change  of  atmosphere  : 


JOHN  OZELL  193 

Britannicus.  I  ill  know  Junia  or  such  Sentiments 
Will  never  win  applause  from  her. 

Nero.   At  least 
If  I  can  ne'er  attain  the  art  to  please  her, 
I  know  the  Art  to  punish  a  rash  Rival. 

Britannicus.   For  me  whatever  HI  Fate  has  in  store 
Nothing  can  shake  my  soul  but  Junia's  hate. 

Nero.  Wish  it !     I  say  no  more  — 

Britannicus.   The  Happiness 
Of  pleasing  Her  is  all  my  Soul  aspires  to.^ 

This  is  not  at  all  bad  for  an  unpretending 
translator  and  there  are  many  such  passages 
(Act  IV.  Scene  3): 

To  his  past  Glory  still  a  Slave  must  Nero 

Forever  have  before  his  Eyes  the  Love, 

Which  Chance  in  one  day  gives  and  snatches  from  us? 

Must  I  indulge  their  Wills  and  cross  my  own? 

Am  I  their  Emperor  only  to  please  them  !  * 

1  Brit.   Je  connais  mal  Junie  ou  de  tels  sentiments 
Ne  mgriteront  pas  ses  applaudissements. 

Neron.   Du  moins  si  je  ne  sals  le  secret  de  lui  plaire 
Je  sals  I'art  de  punir  un  rival  t6m6raire. 

Brit.   Pour  moi,  quelque  p6ril  qui  me  puisse  accabler 
Sa  seule  inimiti6  peut  me  faire  trembler. 

Neron.   Souhaitez-la ;  c'est  tout  ce  que  je  puis  vous  dire. 

Brit.   Le  bonheur  de  lui  plaire  est  le  seul  ou  j'aspire, 

2  Quoi  ?  toujours  enchain^  de  ma  gloire  pass6e, 
J'aurai  devant  les  yeux  je  ne  sais  quel  amour 
Que  le  hasard  nous  donne  et  nous  6te  en  un  jour  ? 
Soumis  k  tons  leur  voeux,  k  mes  d^sirs  contraire, 
Suis-je  leur  empereur  seulement  pour  leur  plaire  ? 


194     CORNEILLE  AND  RACINE  IN  ENGLAND 

This  is  not  only  more  energetic,  but  much 
clearer  than  a  translation  of  the  same  passage 
made  by  a  litterateur  of  much  greater  preten- 
sions than  Ozell  a  hundred  years  later  —  Sir 
Brook  Boothby,  who  attempted  to  add  a  literary 
tone  of  his  own  to  his  work,  making  it  smoother 
and  more  rhetorical  than  Ozell's  bald  transla- 
tion, but  losing  by  that  very  effort  a  certain 
primitive  strength  that  his  predecessor  gained 
by  his  homely  fidelity  (Act  V.  Scene  1) : 

Britannicus.   Amazing  Goodness!      Nero,  filled  with 
splendour 
Thinks  to  reduce  you  with  his  Grandeur's  Witchcraft. 
Yet  here,  where  I  am  shunn'd  and  he  ador'd 
My  Misr'y  you  prefer  to  Nero's  pomp. 
Heavens  !    'Tis  too  much !    In  the  same  Day  and  Place 
To  scorn  his  Sceptre  and  to  weep  for  me  1  ^ 

It  is  not  too  much  to  call  a  man  who  could 
write  these  lines  competent,  even  while  deny- 
ing him  any  claim  to  talent. 

It  is  scarcely  necessary  to  speak  of  the  com- 

1  Quoi  ?  Madame,  en  un  jour  oti  plein  de  sa  grandeur, 
N6ron  croit  6blouir  vos  yeux  de  sa  splendeur, 
Dans  des  lieux  ou  chacun  me  fuit  et  le  r6v6re 
Aux  pompes  de  sa  cour  pr6f  6rer  ma  mis6re  I 
Quoi  ?  dans  ce  meme  jour  et  dans  ces  mgmes  lieux 
Refuser  un  empire  et  pleurer  h  mes  yeux  ! 


JOHN  OZELL  195 

panion  translation  to  this,  the  one  which  was 
"  stitched  up  together  "  with  it  —  Alexander  the 
Grreat.  The  same  characteristics  are  to  be  found 
in  it  as  in  the  Britannicus^  and  whatever  may 
have  been  the  influence  of  one  must  have  been 
that  of  the  other  as  they  were  issued  together. 
What  that  influence  or  career  was,  is  a  little 
difficult  to  determine.  The  date,  1715,  is  before 
the  days  of  regular  book  reviews  in  the  press 
of  the  day,  and  there  are  almost  no  means  of 
discovering  how  these  two  were  received  by 
a  world  which  "  the  Bookseller "  apparently 
thought  was  so  very  eager  to  obtain  them. 

In  the  same  year  with  these  two  tragedies  ap- 
peared the  Cid^  translated  from  the  French  of 
Pierre  Corneille  hy  J,  Ozell.  This  has  the 
curious  eminence  of  being  at  the  same  time  one 
of  the  most  impudent  of  literary  cheats  and  one 
of  the  most  successful.  To  this  day,  in  all 
biographies  (the  Dictionary  of  National  Biogra- 
phy included),  historical  works  on  the  drama, 
and  literary  histories  of  the  eighteenth  century, 
Ozell  receives  credit  for  this  work.  At  least  a 
careful  search  fails  to  show  any  proof  that  he 
was  detected.     Dr.  Mulert^  alone  seems  to  have 

^  Pierre  Corneille  auf  der  Englischen  Buhne. 


196     CORNEILLE  AND   RACINE  IN  ENGLAND 

noticed  a  plagiary  almost  unique  in  its  boldness; 
for  this  translation  is  nothing  more  or  less 
than  a  reprint  of  the  Cid  of  good  old  Rutter  of 
the  time  of  Charles  I.  To  print  in  parallel 
columns  selections  from  Ozell  and  Rutter  or  to 
give  first  a  line  from  one  and  then  from  the 
other  for  comparison,  would  be  a  waste  of  en- 
ergy; for  the  two  texts  are  identical.  It  seems 
really  extraordinary  that  none  of  the  critics  of 
the  day,  so  keen  at  searching  out  weaknesses  in 
even  the  most  popular  authors  and  so  united  in 
their  dislike  of  Ozell,  should  have  discovered 
this  fraud.  For  almost  two  hundred  years  the 
respectable  accountant  has  imposed  on  the 
world,  and  that  in  a  way  so  open  and  obvious  as 
to  make  his  success  amazing.  As  far  as  his 
contemporaries  go,  there  seems  no  reasonable 
explanation  of  their  blindness.  Ozell's  source 
was  not  a  work  which  had  lain  forgotten  for 
centuries  in  a  corner  of  a  library.  It  was  a 
play  which  had  been  performed  as  late  as  1662 
at  one  of  the  leading  theatres  in  London;  so 
that  men  of  sixty-five,  who  read  Ozell's  work, 
were  old  enough  to  have  seen  the  original 
acted  in  their  youth.  And  as  to  the  dramatic 
historians  since  that  time,   this    oversight  of 


JOHN  OZELL  197 

Ozell's  theft  is  quite  as  extraordinary.  Rut- 
ter's  translation  is  a  reasonably  well-known  one, 
and  a  volume  not  particularly  rare.  Ozell's  re- 
print also  is  by  no  means  hard  to  procure,  and 
yet  for  two  centuries  no  one  thought  to  put  the 
two  together. 


xiii.   iphig:6nie 

The  plagiarist  Ozell  went  unmolested  on  his 
way,  but  an  innocent  imitator  who  wrote  in  the 
same  year  found  himself  set  upon  most  fiercely 
by  the  irascible  Boyer. 

Charles  Johnson,  the  author  of  The  Victim 
(JIpTiigSnie)^  a  tragedy  produced  in  1714,  seems  to 
have  been  an  amiable  character,  and  a  man  who 
lived  the  most  tranquil  and  prosperous  of  liter- 
ary lives.  He  was  a  friend  of  the  manager  of 
Drury  Lane,  the  noted  Mr.  Wilks ;  and  Baker 
QBiographica  Dramatical  says  that  it  was 
through  this  connection  that  he  had  his  plays 
presented  on  the  stage  without  any  difficulty. 
The  partiality  of  Wilks  for  Johnson  was  bit- 
terly resented  by  Boyer,  who  had  been  forced 
to  make  his  own  way  unaided.  The  French- 
man regarded  Johnson's  choice  of  IphigSnie^ 
which  he  himself  had  already  translated,  as 
an  insult,  and  his  ill-humor  was  not  improved 
by  the  fact  that  Johnson's  version  was  success- 
fully produced  and  met  with  favor  at  the  hands 
198 


iphigI:nie  199 

of  the  public.  He  insisted  that  Johnson  stole 
his  translation  of  1700,  and  was  successfully 
concealing  this  fact.  He  published  at  once  a 
second  edition  of  his  own  Iphigenia  in  Aulis, 
with  an  indignant  preface  giving  an  account  of 
what  he  considered  an  attack  on  his  honor. 
*'  My  Tragedy,  having  long  lain  dormant,  was 
lately  revived  in  the  most  Irregular  Manner 
that  was  ever  known  or  practised  either  on 
Parnassus  by  Poets,  or  on  the  Stage  by  Actors. 
The  town  has  already  done  Mr.  Boyer  justice 
by  discovering  the  Imposition,  and  by  finding 
out  that  the  Victim  was  no  other  than  Achilles 
and  Iphigenia  in  Aulis.  .  .  .  But  the  manner 
in  which  his  Performance  and  Himself  have 
been  abused  is  so  flagrant  and  injurious  that 
he  designs  in  a  few  days  to  publish  a  short  Dis- 
sertation on  the  Present  Management  of  the 
Stage,  addressed  to  My  Lord  Chamberlain, 
wherein  he  shall  set  forth  in  a  true  light  the 
pernicious  Consequences  of  such  unfair  Prac- 
tices, both  of  Writers  and  Players ;  and  in  par- 
ticular, inquire  into  the  reason  Whg  Mr.  Wilks 
declined  to  revive  this  very  tragedy  for  the 
entertainment  of  the  Duke  D'Aumont,  who,  by 
his  Secretary,  M.  I'Abb^  Nadal,  had  intimated 


200    CORNEILLE  AND  RACINE   IN  ENGLAND 

to  Mr.  Boyer  His  Desire  to  see  it  represented ; 
whicli  Mr.  Boyer  signified  to  Mr.  Wilks." 
There  is  a  whole  story  to  be  read  between 
the  lines  here  which  explains  why,  later  on  in 
the  preface,  Boyer  is  so  savage  against  the 
quality  of  Johnson's  verse ;  which  certainly 
is  nothing  extraordinary,  but  does  not  deserve 
the  cuts  which  the  disappointed  Frenchman 
showers  on  it.  The  relation  between  the  two 
translators  was  the  same  as  that  between  the 
persons  of  honor,  Mrs.  Philips  and  Cotton,  of 
Restoration  days.  Johnson  had  simply  taken 
the  same  play  as  Boyer,  and  translated  it 
almost  as  well,  in  his  own  way.  There  are 
occasional  reminiscences  of  the  earlier  work 
to  be  found  in  Johnson's  Victim  ;  but  it  would 
be  surprising  if  there  were  not,  under  the  cir- 
cumstances, and  they  prove  no  direct  imitation. 
Johnson  did  use  the  same  sort  of  ending  as 
Boyer,  it  must  be  confessed,  with  the  same 
processions  of  priests  and  soldiers,  and  it  is 
probable  that  the  idea  was  partly  suggested  by 
Boyer's  unfortunate  ingenuity  in  this  direction  ; 
but  even  here  there  is  no  plagiarism  in  the  real 
sense  of  the  word ;  no  speeches  are  lifted  bodily. 
Moreover,  Johnson  introduces  a  new  character 


iphigI:nie  201 

in  the  Dramatis  Personce^  Menelaus,  and  he  does 
not  have  Diana  actually  appear  in  the  last  act. 

Lanson  in  speaking  of  Voltaire's  hostility  to 
English  influence  on  the  French  stage  lets  fall 
an  interesting  remark :  "  II  se  moquait  de  la 
malencontreuse  idee  que  la  Comedie  eut  un 
jour  de  mettre  en  action  le  denouement  d'lphi- 
gSnie,^''  It  would  be  interesting  to  investigate 
this  and  discover  if  either  of  these  two  English 
versions  had  any  influence  in  bringing  about 
so  radical  a  departure  from  the  traditions  of  the 
Theatre  Frangais.^ 

The  situation  in  England  was  probably  this. 
There  was  a  demand  for  French  tragedy  which 
Wilks,  as  shrewd  stage-manager,  was  bound  to 
supply.  IphigSnie  seemed  deserving  of  more 
success  than  it  had  obtained  in  Boyer's  version 
fifteen  years  before,  and  it  seemed  a  good  oppor- 
tunity to  throw  a  chance  for  profit  in  the  path 
of  his  friend  Charles  Johnson,  professional 
translator. 

The  tragedy  is  translated  with  reasonable 
closeness,  though  with  some  heightening  of 
effects  and  a  little  doctoring  of  roles  to  make 
them  suit  the  actors  who  were  to  play  them. 

1  Histoire  de  la  LiUerature  frangaisei  p.  641, 


202    CORNEILLE  AND   RACINE   IN  ENGLAND 

The  cast  at  Drury  Lane  was  better  than  the 
one  which  had  produced  Boyer's  Achilles^  as 
Mrs.  Porter  and  Mrs.  Oldfield  took  the  two 
principal  parts.  There  are  a  few  changes,  but 
none  of  any  importance.  The  versification  is 
smooth  though  not  free  from  Gallicisms.  It 
is  altogether  a  very  uninteresting  work,  al- 
though it  had  more  success  than  Boyer's 
attempt.  It  was  played  to  good  houses  at  its 
first  representation  and  had  several  revivals 
afterwards. 

The  difference  between  them  seems  to  be 
that  Johnson  is  smoother  but  much  less  vigor- 
ous than  Boyer.  They  render  in  quite  differ- 
ent ways  almost  every  strong  expression  of 
feeling  in  the  original  (Act  II.  Scene  7) : 

Achille.     Quelle  entreprise  ici  pourroit  etre  form^e? 
Suis-je  sans  le  savoir  la  fable  de  I'arinee  ? 
Entrons.     Cast  un  secret  qu'il  leur  faut  arracher! 

(Johnson.)     I'll  know  this  secret ;  instantly  I'll  know  it 
I'll  force  it  from  'em.     My  distracted  Soul 
Burns  in  suspense  between  my  Love  and 
Glory. 

(Boyer.)   What  can  their  Counsels  mean  ?    Am  I  abus'd 
And  made  a  tale  to  entertain  the  Army  ? 
I'll  in  —  And  wrench  this  secret  from  their 
souls. 


IPHIG^NIE  203 

This  passage  illustrates  very  well  the  difference 
between  the  methods  of  the  two  translators. 
Boyer  is  still  the  conscientious  seventeenth- 
century  worker  who  really  aims  to  reproduce 
the  details  of  his  original  as  well  as  the  plot. 
Johnson  is  the  type  of  the  later  translator 
who  finds  it  easier  to  fill  out  a  line  with  some 
bombastic  invention  of  his  own  than  to  seek 
to  reproduce  the  French  in  details  whose 
rendering  does  not  at  once  occur  to  him. 
Platitudinous  padding  like  "My  distracted 
Soul,  burns  in  suspense  between  my  love  and 
glory  "  is  a  characteristic  mark  of  the  careless 
eighteenth-century  translators.  And  that  they 
were  justified,  as  far  as  material  success  is 
concerned,  in  doing  this  sort  of  hit-or-miss 
work  is  shown  by  the  fact  that  Johnson's  Vic- 
tim succeeded  and  Boyer's  Achilles  failed. 

The  quarrel  between  these  two  rivals  was 
still  being  carried  on  in  the  next  year,  1715, 
while  the  indefatigable  Ozell  was  bringing  out 
another  of  his  faithful,  uninspired  book  trans- 
lations; choosing  a  comedy,  Les  Plaideurs, 
which  he  published  with  the  title  of  the  Liti- 
gants, For  the  first  time  this  patient  plodder 
appears  to  doubt  his  ability  to  reproduce  what- 


204    CORNEILLE  AND  RACINE  IN  ENGLAND 

ever  he  wishes.  The  light  and  tripping  verse 
of  the  French  comedy  seems  to  daunt  him,  and 
he  writes  his  translation  in  prose.  As  a  con- 
sequence, he  does  much  better  work  than  in 
most  of  his  translations.  There  are  no  features 
to  be  remarked  upon,  as  he  simply  makes  a 
faithful,  almost  a  literal,  translation  with  no 
change  of  any  kind ;  but  he  has  preserved  much 
better  than  usual  the  humor  of  the  original, 
which  is  really  astonishingly  vivid  in  the  re- 
production. 

It  is  a  much  more  satisfactory  production 
than  any  of  his  tragedies,  and  the  fact  that  it 
is  in  prose  seems  to  help  it.  It  would  appear 
that  humor  is  a  growth  of  sturdier  nature  than 
tragic  elevation,  and  better  able  to  endure  the 
rough  handling  of  this  unskilful  replanter. 
It  reads  very  well,  and  the  gay  good  humor 
of  the  irony  exhales  from  the  English  as  well 
as  from  the  French  and  Greek  plays. 

In  1715  was  also  published  the  first  of  the 
long  list  of  Translations  from  Racine's  two 
tragedies  drawn  from  the  Old  Testament. 
Mr.  Thomas  Brereton,  of  Brazenose  College, 
Oxford,  wrote  a  translation  of  Esther^  appar- 
ently the  first  which  had  been  made  in  English. 


IPHIGENIE  205 

In  studying  Brereton's  life  one  is  again  con- 
fronted, with  the  influence  of  French  refugees. 
Indeed,  persecutions  of  various  kinds  seem  to 
have  been  a  great  factor  in  the  knowledge  of 
each  other  which  France  and  England  gained 
at  this  time.  In  the  middle  of  the  seven- 
teenth century  there  was  a  rush  of  Royalist 
refugees  to  France,  and  later  on  in  the  same 
century,  and  during  the  first  part  of  the 
eighteenth,  there  was  a  current  of  French 
Huguenots  coming  to  England.  Both  of  these 
movements  seem  to  have  helped  on  the  desire 
for  translation  of  French  tragedy.  Mr.  Brere- 
ton's education  before  he  went  to  Oxford 
was  received  in  a  boarding  school  in  Chester 
kept  by  a  Mr.  Dennis,  a  French  refugee.  As 
the  greater  part  of  his  literary  work  consists  of 
translations  from  the  French,  it  can  easily 
be  imagined  that  he  was  deeply  influenced 
by  this  early  acquaintance  with  the  French 
language. 

Brereton's  life  is  a  very  different  one  from 
the  tranquil,  prosperous  careers  of  Ozell  and 
Johnson.  Stormy  and  uncertain,  with  a  tragic 
ending,  his  history  is  more  characteristic  of 
the  literary  people  of  his  time.     He  inherited  a 


206    CORNEILLE  AND  RACINE  IN  ENGLAND 

considerable  fortune,  but  very  soon  wasted  it  all, 
and  became  so  poor  that  his  family  was  obliged 
to  return  to  his  wife's  home  in  Wales.  The 
year  after  this,  having  taken  to  political  writ- 
ings after  all  other  means  of  gaining  a  liveli- 
hood had  failed,  he  was  drowned  while  attempt- 
ing to  escape  prosecution  for  a  libellous  attack 
on  a  political  enemy. 

His  translation  of  Esther  seems  to  have  been 
the  first  of  his  not  numerous  literary  produc- 
tions which  was  published  with  his  consent.  It 
has  a  certain  importance,  more  than  is  deserved 
by  its  own  merits,  due  to  the  fact  that  it  is  the 
first  English  translation  of  a  play  which  must 
have  appealed  strongly  to  English  tastes. 
This  is  certainly  the  most  important  of  Brere- 
ton's  works,  though  Jacob  (^Poetical  Register)^ 
writing  about  the  time  of  his  death,  says, 
"This  author  has  also  begun  a  Translation  of 
the  other  sacred  Tragedy  of  Racine  call'd 
Athalidh.^^  His  tragic  death  put  an  end  to 
this  plan. 

All  the  biographers  of  Brereton  mention  as 
second  among  his  works.  Sir  John  Oldcastle, 
founded  on  the  Polyeucte  of  Oorneille^  pub- 
lished in  1717,  but   a  faithful  search  fails  to 


IPHIG^NIE  207 

reveal  any  trace  of  this  work's  ever  having  seen 
the  light.  Moreover,  the  remarks  of  the  various 
cataloguers  and  biographers  about  this  play- 
seem  upon  inspection  to  be  copied  one  from 
the  other.  Not  one  of  them  speaks  as  though 
he  had  actually  seen  the  work,  and  although 
Esther^  A  Day^8  Journey^  and  other  of  his  efforts 
are  described  accurately  and  evidently  from  a 
first-hand  knowledge,  no  direct  information  is 
given  about  Sir  John  Oldcastle  beyond  the 
fact  that  it  was  supposed  to  be  drawn  from 
Corneille,  and  was  printed  in  1717.  The 
British  Museum  does  not  possess  it,  nor  any  of 
the  other  great  libraries  of  England  —  at  least 
as  far  as  the  writer  has  been  able  to  determine. 
Further  than  this,  the  lists  of  books  printed  at 
this  time,  publishers'  catalogues  and  the  like, 
have  no  record  of  it.  It  is  a  plausible  theory 
that  it  was  actually  written  and  prepared  for 
publication,  that  a  publisher  accepted  it  and 
announced  that  it  was  about  to  appear  but  for 
some  reason  it  was  never  actually  put  in  book 
form,  and  that  the  early  biographers,  noting  the 
announcement,  took  for  granted  that  the  book 
had  appeared. 

It  is  rather  a  pity  that  Brereton's  Sir  John 


208    COENEILLE  AND  RACINE  IN  ENGLAND 

Oldcastle  cannot  be  found  and  that  his  Athaliah 
was  never  finished,  for  they  would  have  formed 
a  trilogy  of  French  religious  plays  in  English, 
the  first  of  their  kind,  and  all  done  by  the  same 
author.  It  is  only  for  the  sake  of  completeness, 
however,  that  one  wishes  for  the  other  two,  as 
the  slightness  of  Esther's  literary  value  does 
not  fill  the  reader  with  any  very  keen  regret  at 
their  loss  for  their  own  sake. 

Brereton  begins  his  work  by  a  very  long 
argumentative  Dedication  to  the  Lord  Arch- 
bishop of  York,  containing,  besides  the  usual 
fulsome  compliments  to  his  patron,  an  arraign- 
ment of  the  English  stage  for  continually  pre- 
senting "The  abominations  of  the  Pagan 
World,"  a  defence  of  the  stage  against  attacks 
on  its  immorality,  a  hint  that  his  work  would 
be  suitable  for  use  at  Court  ("  The  Maids  of 
the  Retinue  of  Our  Queen  might  emulate  the 
Virgins  of  Saint  Cyr "),  and  a  vigorously 
expressed  hope  that  "  those  chearfully  virtuous 
Families  which  are  sometimes  pleased  to  so 
recreate  themselves  will  not  be  apt  to  pro- 
nounce the  Hours  I  have  spent  on  this  Essay  to 
be  wholly  in  vain."  In  short,  it  is  Esther  pre- 
sented as  a  Sunday-school  book,  and  the  level  of 


IPHIGifeNIE  209 

skill  displayed  in  the  translation  justifies  his 
own  classification  of  it.  He  has  the  merit,  how- 
ever, of  following  his  original  with  considerable 
accuracy.  A  soliloquy  by  Mordecai  and  a 
superfluous  scene  in  the  first  act  are  the  only 
changes,  except  a  curiously  significant  one  in 
Act  V.  Scene  7,  when  a  speech  oddly  out  of 
character  by  Esther  is  inserted.  As  Haman  is 
dragged  off  by  the  guards,  Esther's  consistent. 
Old  Testament,  hard  silence  toward  her  con- 
quered enemy  was  evidently  regarded  as  vin- 
dictive by  the  sentimental  eighteenth-century 
translator  who  was  preparing  a  work  for 
"  chearf ully  virtuous  English  Families,"  for  he 
makes  Esther  say. 

In  this  warm  Mood  I  nothing  cou'd  obtain, 
And  all  the  Mercy  I  design'd  is  vain. 

The  translation  is  in  verse  throughout,  and 
very  bad  rhyme  much  of  it  is.  Inversions  are 
frequent  and  forced  (Act  II.  Scene  1)  : 

Doubtless,  my  Lord,  yon  not  my  Trust  conceive, 
None  can  surprize  us  here  without  my  leave. 
******* 
Strait  I  attended  —  Wild  was  his  discourse. 
He  plain'd  some  danger  that  his  life  would  force. 


210     CORNEILLE  AND   RACINE  IN  ENGLAND 

Fierce  Mordecai  not  bowed  —  what  needed  more 
To  Haman  he  not  kneeled  as  others  do. 

Of  his  choruses  the  less  said  the  better.  He 
apologizes  for  them  himself,  saying  they  "  were 
fitted  to  the  French  music  on  which  account 
the  Verses  could  rarely  be  reduced  to  the  Meas- 
ure of  any  of  the  common  English  Stanzas." 
With  this  self-arrogated  license,  he  allows  him- 
self all  sorts  of  irregularities : 

This  God  so  high  —  this  jealous  God  I 

Ye  Nations,  tremble  at  His  Name  1 

Is  he  alone  whose  awful  Nod 

Commands  the  universal  Frame ; 

Nor  hope  so  for  his  People  to  subdue 

But  he  can  yet  confound  your  Gods  and  You !  ^ 

This  is  below  even  the  average  hymn  level  of 
sense  and  sound. 

The  first  impulse  upon  reading  this  transla- 
tion is  to  throw  it  one  side  as  rubbish  and  to 
rejoice  that  the  other  two  of  the  series  are  lost. 

1  Ce  Dieu  jaloux  —  ce  Dieu  victorieux, 
Fr^missez,  peuples  de  la  terre, 
Ce  Dieu  jaloux  —  ce  Dieu  victorieux, 
Est  le  seul  qui  commande  aux  cieux ; 
*         Ni  les  Eclairs  ni  le  tonnerre 
N'ob^issent  point  k  vos  dieux. 


rPHIGtolE  211 

But  that  it  found  a  public  not  insensible  to  its 
attractions  (whatever  they  are)  is  shown  in 
quite  elaborate  notices  of  the  author  which  the 
Poetical  Register  and  other  biographical  works 
of  the  time  insert,  almost  without  exception  ; 
and  in  the  fact  that  a  second  edition  was  issued 
four  years  later.  On  those  who  did  not  know 
his  great  original,  Brereton  must  have  made 
some  sort  of  a  favorable  impression  to  account 
for  this  amount  of  success. 


XIV.  MISCELLANEOUS  TRANSLATIONS 

The  next  translation,  presented  in  1717  by 
the  mild  and  pacific  Mr.  Johnson  (author  of  the 
Victim^  which  was  so  attacked  by  Boyer  in  1714), 
was  again  the  centre  of  a  lively  literary  skir- 
mish. A  short  time  before  the  appearance  of 
The  Sultaness^  as  Johnson's  adaptation  of  Bajazet 
was  called,  a  comedy  named  Three  Hours  after 
Marriage  was  played  with  little  success.  Pope 
was  one  of  the  authors  of  this  piece,  although 
his  name  did  not  appear  in  the  matter,  and  it  is 
the  popular  theory  that  his  dislike  of  actors 
dates  from  the  cool  reception  of  this  comedy. 

Johnson  was  injudicious  enough  to  insert  in 
the  prologue  to  his  new  tragedy.  The  Sultaness, 
a  hit  at  the  three  authors  of  the  unsuccessful 
Three  Hours  after  Marriage^  which  Pope  never 
forgave  and  which  immortalized  Johnson  by 
securing  for  him  a  place  in  the  Dunciad.  The 
whole  prologue  is  singularly  ungracious  and 
tactless,  and  will  perhaps  be  interesting  on 
account  of  the  stir  made  about  it.  After  about 
212 


MISCELLANEOUS  TRANSLATIONS  213 

eighteen  lines  of  the  usual  hackneyed  prologue 
verse : 

Our  honest  Author  frankly  bade  me  say 
*Tis  to  the  great  Racine  he  owes  his  Play. 
When  Rome  in  Arms  had  gained  immortal  Fame 
And  proudly  triumphed  o'er  the  Grecian  name, 
Her  Poets  copied  what  Athenians  writ, 
And  boasted  in  the  Spoils  of  foreign  wit. 
Why  then  should  Britons,  who  so  oft  have  broke 
The  Pride  of  Gaul,  and  bow'd  her  to  the  Yoke, 
Be  blamed  if  they  enrich  their  native  tongue 
With  what  the  Gallick  Muse  has  greatly  sung. 
At  least  'tis  hoped  he'll  meet  a  kinder  Fate 
Who  strives  some  standard  Author  to  translate. 
Than  they  who  give  you,  without  once  repenting. 
Long  laboured  Nonsense  of  their  own  inventing. 
Such  Wags  have  been  who  boldly  did  adventure 
To  club  a  Farce  by  Tripartite  Indenture. 
But,  let  'em  share  the  Dividend  of  Praise 
And  wear  their  own  Fool's  Cap  instead  of  Bays. 

This  cut  at  the  not  too  popular  Mr.  Pope  was 
received  with  enthusiasm  and  was  chosen  for  the 
motto  of  The  Confederates^  an  elaborate  parody 
of  Three  Hours  after  Marriage. 

The  Sultaness,  far  more  than  most  Angliciz- 
ings  of  French  tragedy  in  the  eighteenth  century, 
is  really  a  translation  and  not  an  adaptation,  and 
is  by  no  means  a  bad  one.  Johnson  had  had 
much  practice  in  writing  dramatic  blank  verse 


214     CORNEILLE  AND  RACINE  IN  ENGLAND 

in  translations  from  the  French,  and  this  shows 
itself  in  a  production  agreeably  free  from  Galli- 
cisms and  absurdities  of  style.  The  Dramatis 
PersoncB  are  the  same  as  in  the  original  and 
printed  in  the  same  order.  It  is  interesting  to 
note  that  as  early  as  this  Zaire  is  incorrectly 
rendered  Zara,  a  fault  that  was  to  become  very 
prominent  in  the  later  translations  of  Voltaire. 
The  disposition  of  the  scenes  is  exactly  the 
same,  and  the  tragic  ending  is  for  once  allowed 
to  stand  as  it  was  designed  by  the  author,  with- 
out bringing  to  life  the  defunct.  Johnson  shows 
more  conscience  and  more  ability  in  this  work 
than  in  almost  any  other. 

Baker  and  Genest  each  has  a  bad  word  for 
it,  however,  and  report  with  surprise  that  it  was 
by  no  means  a  failure.  Baker  (^Biographica 
Dramatica)  says,  "  The  SultanesB  is  little  more 
than  a  translation  of  the  Bajazet  of  Racine,  a 
Piece  which  of  itself  is  esteemed  the  very  worst 
of  that  author's  writings  ;  and  as  Mr.  John- 
son's talent  seem'd  to  consist  more  in  Comedy 
than  in  Tragedy,  it  is  not  to  be  wondered  at  if 
this  Play  thus  served  up  at  second  Hand  by 
so  indifferent  cook  should  form  rather  an  in- 
sipid  and  distasteful   Dish ;   yet   it  was  per- 


MISCELLANEOUS  TRANSLATIONS  215 

formed  at  Drury  Lane  with  no  bad  success." 
Genest  has  his  usual  laconic  fling  at  French 
tragedy.  "It  is  a  dull  play,"  he  says,  and 
finds  less  interest  in  the  consideration  of  the 
play  itself  than  in  the  fact  that  it  was  the  first 
drama  in  English  to  be  printed  in  octavo. 

On  the  whole  it  seems  to  deserve  a  more 
favorable  judgment  than  is  usually  given.  It 
is  quite  free  from  strained  inversions,  the  beset- 
ting sin  of  mediocre  translators,  and  is  smooth 
and  intelligible.  It  is  true  it  is  lacking  some- 
what in  fire  and  spirit,  both  qualities  rather 
essential  in  reproducing  the  portrait  of  a  char- 
acter like  Roxane,  but  its  lucidity  and  work- 
manlike technique  make  it  very  pleasant  reading 
after  work  like  Brereton's,  or  like  the  translation 
next  to  be  considered.  A  good  example  of  John- 
son's style  follows  (Act  II.  Scene  1) : 

Bajazet.   How  Madam ! 

Roxana.   Wherefore  do  you  start,  my  Lord? 
Is  there  a  bar  between  us  and  our  Joys  ? 

Bajazet.   You  know  our  Empire  jealous  of  its  Pow'r. 
Yet  let  me  not  repeat  the  ungrateful  Law. 

Roxana.   I  know  when  barb'rous  Bajazet  dethroned 
Young  Ibrahim ;  the  captive  Emperor 
Beheld  his  Spouse  chained  to  the  Victor's  Car 
And  drag'd  through  Asia  to  adorn  his  Triumph. 


216     COKNEILLE  AND  RACINE  IN  ENGLAND 

Bajazet.  Madam  the  Choice  is  easie ;  Either  raise 
Your  Prisoner  —  and  conduct  him  to  the  Throne 
Or  (I  await  the  Word)  receive  your  Victim. 

Roxana.   Enough,  'tis  done !    You  shall  be  satisfied ! 
A  Guard  there !  i 

It  is  probable  that  Boyer  could  have  done  better 
than  this  and  that  he  would  have  avoided  the 
many  entirely  unnecessary  departures  from  the 
French.  But  with  all  its  faults  this  is  on 
the  whole  a  very  fair  rendition,  and  deserves 
much  praise  for  its  fidelity  to  the  construction 
of  the  French  play. 

The  next  translation  is  one  of  La  Thehdide^ 
written  by  a  Miss  J.  Robe  and  published  in 
1723  with  the  title  The  Fatal  Legacy.  The 
dedication  shows  that  the  disfavor  which  was 
to   fall   upon   later    translations    was    already 

^  Bajazet.   O  ciel !  que  ne  puis-je  parler  ? 
Roxane.   Quoi  done  ?  que  dites-vous  ?  et  que  viens-je 
d'entendre  ? 
Vous  avez  des  secrets  que  je  ne  puis  apprendre ! 
Quoi!  de  vos  sentiments  je  ne  puis  m'eclaircir? 
Bajazet.  Madame,   encore  un  coup,   c'est  k  vous   de 
choisir; 
Daignez  m'ouvrir  au  trone  un  chemin  legitime ; 
Ou  bien,  me  voila  pret,  prenez  votre  victime. 

Roxane.  Ah  !  e'en  est  trop  enfin,  tu  seras  satisfait. 
Hoik !  gardes,  qu'on  vienne. 


MISCELLANEOUS  TRANSLATIONS  217 

casting  its  shadow  before.  The  publisher 
says,  speaking  for  the  authoress  who  was 
apparently  too  timid  to  speak  for  herself, 
"  This  tragedy  was  writ  by  a  young  Lady  and 
entrusted  to  my  management.  I  introduced 
it  into  the  Playhouse  for  her  Interest  and  take 
the  freedom  of  making  choice  of  you  as  a 
Patron  for  her  Reputation.  Whatever  cold 
Encouragement  it  met  with  upon  the  Stage 
I  am  induced,  from  the  Opinion  of  several 
good  Judges  who  perused  it  before  it  came 
there,  to  believe  it  might  very  reasonably  be 
attributed  to  the  Season  of  the  Year  which 
was  a  little  too  far  advanced  to  afford  much 
Success  to  any  Entertainment  of  this  kind. 
It  may  probably,  the  next  winter,  when  the 
Manager  of  the  Theatre  has  agreed  to  let  it 
try  its  fortune  again,  appear  to  a  greater 
Advantage.  The  four  first  acts  are  taken 
chiefly  from  Racine,  but  the  Last  is,  excepting 
a  few  lines,  entirely  new." 

In  spite  of  the  hope  expressed  here  the 
play  seems  never  to  have  seen  the  footlights 
after  its  first  unfortunate  experience.  It  also 
never  reached  the  honor  of  a  second  edition. 
From  all  indications  it  was  a  very  great  fail- 


218     CORNEILLE  AND  RACINE  IN  ENGLAND 

ure ;  but,  such  is  the  levelling  power  of  two  cen- 
turies, it  seems  no  worse  to  the  modern  reader 
than  many  other  such  productions  which  never- 
theless enjoyed  a  moderate  success.  There 
are  perhaps  more  Gallicisms  and  more  pro- 
nounced ones  in  the  style  than  were  common, 
as  in  Act  IV.  Scene  3,  where  a  very  noticeable 
one  is  encountered  in  the  translation  of  the 
line,  '•''L' injustice  me  plait,  pourvu  que  je  fen 
chasse,^^  which  is  rendered  "  Injustice  pleases 
if  I  but  you  chase."  This  is  indeed  impres- 
sively bad,  but  no  worse  than  passages  which 
might  be  chosen  from  other  plays  which  en- 
joyed a  little  more  favor.  To  the  indifferent 
and  disinterested  modern  reader  there  seems 
no  reason  why  Gibber's  Ximena  should  have 
succeeded  while  Miss  Robe's  Fatal  Legacy 
failed.  It  is  not  in  rhyme,  for  one  thing, 
which  removes  a  fruitful  source  of  absurdity 
to  the  unskilful  translator.  A  passage  like 
this    from    the    last    scene    in  the   first  act : 

And  oh  I  ye  Gods  if  an  unspotted  flame 
Meets  with  regards  above,  restore,  restore 
My  Life,  my  Soul,  my  Phocias  to  my  Love  ^  — 

1  Et  si  tu  prends  piti6  d'une  flamme  innocente 
O  ciel,  en  ramenant  H6mon  ^  son  amante 


MISCELLANEOUS  TRANSLATIONS  219 

is  certainly  not  inspired,  but  even  "  unspotted 
Flame "  is  no  worse  than  some  of  Gibber's 
idiosyncrasies  or  Brereton's  clumsy  paraphrases. 
Miss  Robe  follows  the  fashion  introduced  by 
Smith  and  continued  by  Gibber  in  altering  the 
last  scene  by  bringing  in  Phocias  alive,  though 
Racine  had  killed  him.  La  ThShaide  was  too 
sad  for  Englishmen.  The  English  adapters 
of  French  tragedy  seem  to  have  been  genuinely 
convinced  of  the  success  of  this  naive  method 
of  eating  their  tragic  cake  and  keeping  it  too  ; 
for  they  kill  off  just  as  many  characters  as 
do  the  French,  but  make  a  happy  ending  by 
simply  bringing  them  again  upon  the  stage. 
Miss  Robe's  contention  that  the  last  act  is  not 
copied  from  La  Thebdide  is  not  founded  on  fact, 
for  it  follows  Racine  quite  as  closely  as  the 
rest  wherever  her  change  of  plot  does  not  make 
it  impossible.  She  makes  no  attempt  to  trans- 
late accurately,  and  most  of  the  work  is  vague 
paraphrase. 

The  I'atal  Legacy  was  presented  to  the  public 
on  April  23,  1723,  at  Lincoln's  Inn  Fields,  four 
months  after  a  successful  revival  of  the  Phoedra 

Ramfene-le  fiddle  ;  et  permets,  en  ce  jour 
Qu*en  retrouvant  Pamant  je  retrouve  PamouP. 


220     CORNEILLE  AND  RACINE  IN  ENGLAND 

of  Edmund  Smith,  at  the  same  theatre.  It  was 
played  only  once,  apparently,  and  then  dis- 
appeared. The  inflated  and  bombastic  style 
is  highly  characteristic  of  dramatic  writings 
of  the  period,  but  it  is  not  without  the 
merit  of  a  certain  academic  correctness  which 
makes  it  always  intelligible  at  least  (Act  II. 
Scene  3)  : 

That  Love  his  happy  Sister  once  could  boast 

Is  lost,  translated  to  another  aim. 

He's  charmed  with  Blood  —  the  scarlet  object  takes ; 

And  fiery  Polynices  is  no  more 

Th'  affectionate,  the  soft  endearing  Brother, 

He  eyes  us  both  with  a  disdaining  air. 

It  is  quite  evident  that  this  translation  of 
Les  Freres  Ennemis  was  one  of  the  most 
obscure,  and  had  neither  importance  nor  repu- 
tation in  the  history  of  translations.  Lowe's 
bibliography  mentions  a  pamphlet  appearing 
in  1723,  "  Abstract  of  the  lives  of  Etiocles  and 
Polynices  necessary  to  be  read  by  the  Spec- 
tators of  the  Fatal  Legacy.  J.  Robe."  The 
British  Museum  does  not  possess  this,  but  its 
disappearance  is  little  to  be  regretted. 

In  1725  (two  years  after  the  failure  of  the 
Fatal  Legacy)   CoUey  Gibber  performed  what 


MISCELLANEOUS  TRANSLATIONS  221 

is  perhaps  his  most  remarkable  feat  in  the  way 
of  using  other  people's  materials.  Taking 
Beaumont  and  Fletcher's  False  One^  Corneille's 
PompSe^  and  one  or  two  ideas  of  his  own,  he 
stirred  them  all  together  with  such  vigor,  and 
so  disguised  them  with  his  own  wonderful 
versification,  that  it  is  an  almost  impossible 
task  to  distinguish  the  different  elements  in 
the  dish  which  he  served  up  to  the  public  at 
Drury  Lane  under  the  title  of  Coesar  in  Egypt. 
As  final  flavor  he  refrains  from  giving  any 
indication  that  the  entire  tragedy  is  not  of  his 
own  invention.  Whether  this  is  disingenuous, 
as  would  appear  at  first,  or  whether,  as  late  in 
Colley's  life  as  this,  it  went  without  saying  that 
he  borrowed  his  material  is  hard  to  decide. 

The  prologue  contains  two  rather  neatly 
witty  lines.  Mr.  Wilkes,  speaking  of  the 
great  rage  for  French  farce.  Harlequin  panto- 
mime, and  the  like,  says. 

Far  be  it  from  us  to  question  your  Delight 
To  be  at  Pleasure  wrong  is  English  right. 

The  general  plan  and  construction  of  the 
play  is  undoubtedly  Corneille's,  many  of  the 
best  speeches  are  literally  translated,  especially 


222     CORNEILLE  AND  RACINE  IN  ENGLAND 

some  of  the  famous  ones  between  Cornelia  and 
Csesar ;  and  the  description  of  Pompey's  death 
is  taken  verbatim  from  the  French : 

When  from  his  ships  he  saw  the  spacious  Beach 
Covered  with  gazing  crowds  and  at  their  front 
Our  shining  Troops  in  stately  order  ranged 

****** 
Concluding  that  our  grateful  King  designed 
In  Person  and  with  Honours  to  receive  him. 
But  when  at  length  he  found  but  one  poor  Boat 
Sent  forth,  fill'd  only  with  a  chosen  guard, 
And  those  without  the  King  to  grace  his  Welcome, 
His  Fate  he  saw,  yet  would  not  seem  to  see. 
Silent  he  stood,  with  Eyes  resigned  and  dauntless, 
Or  anxious  only  for  Cornelia's  fears.^ 

This  is  not  absolutely  literal,  but  it  is  as  much 
so  as  Gibber's  avowed  translations. 

It  is  curious  in  this  connection  to  note  that 
a  German  doctor's  dissertation  has  been  written ^ 

1  Achoree.   Et  voyant  dans  le  port  preparer  nos  galferes, 
B  croyait  que  le  roi  touchy  de  ses  mis6res, 
Par  un  beau  sentiment  d'honneur  et  de  devoir, 
Avec  toute  sa  cour  le  venait  recevoir  ; 
Mais  voyant  que  ce  prince,  ingrat  h,  ses  mSrites, 
N' envoy  ait  qu'un  esquif  rempli  de  satellites, 
II  soupQonne  aussitCt  son  manquement  de  foi, 

^  ^F  ▼  9!c  ^  'p 

Et  r6duit  tons  les  soins  d'un  si  pressant  ennui 

A  ne  hasarder  pas  CornSlie  avec  lui. 

2  Das  Verhdltnis  von  Gibber's  Tragodie  Csesar  in  Egypt 


MISCELLANEOUS  TRANSLATIONS  223 

which,  although  tracing  the  sources  of  Gib- 
ber's work,  wholly  ignores  the  large  part  which 
PompSe  plays  in  the  construction  of  the  tragedy, 
drawing  all  of  the  material  from  Beaumont  and 
Fletcher.  As  if  to  make  up  for  this,  Baker 
(^BiograpMca  Dramatioa)  gives  no  credit  to 
Beaumont  and  Fletcher,  saying  that  it  is  all 
taken  from  Corneille.  Genest  ^  acknowledges 
that  the  character  of  Cornelia  is  Corneille's, 
but  then  proceeds  to  criticise  most  severely  the 
very  parts  which  originated  with  the  French. 

As  this  play  is  not  one  of  Gibber's  successes 
it  is  scarcely  worth  mentioning,  except  for  the 
fact  that  it  is  a  very  interesting  symbol  of  the 
average  attempt  of  that  period  to  put  French 
tragedy  on  the  English  stage.  A  play  of  the 
Elizabethan  school  is  forced  into  unnatural 
coalescence  with  one  of  the  most  classical  of 
seventeenth-century  French  tragedies,  and  the 
result  is  performed  before  an  audience  of  the 
early  Georgian  period  —  a  monstrous  effort 
whose   failure  is  assured  from  the  beginning. 

Gibber's  adaptation  is  almost  the  last  of  this 

zu  Fletcher's  The  False  One :  Max  Stoye,  Friedrichs-Univer- 
sitat,  Halle,  1897. 

1  Some  Account f  Vol.  III.  p.  161. 


224     CORNEILLE  AND  RACINE  IN  ENGLAND 

series  of  translated  plays.  The  group  which 
has  just  been  surveyed  and  of  which  the  one 
about  to  be  considered  is  the  last,  was  the  direct 
result  of  the  success  of  the  Distrest  Mother  —  all 
being  attempts  to  reproduce  the  popular  ele- 
ments in  that  play.  In  the  eighteen  years  fol- 
lowing Ambrose  Philips's  triumph,  fourteen 
translations  of  classic  tragedy  had  appeared; 
but  between  the  Rival  Father  of  Hatchett  played 
at  the  Haymarket  in  1730  and  the  next  ren- 
dition, lies  a  gap  of  twenty  years  without  the 
appearance  of  a  single  new  translation.  The 
Distrest  Mother  was  acted  steadily  all  through 
this  period,  and  once  or  twice  some  of  the 
other  translations  were  revived;  but  in  general 
the  movement  started  by  Philips  and  the  Addi- 
son circle  died  down  completely  until  another 
great  success  in  1750  turned  attention  in  that 
way  again. 

The  play  now  under  consideration  —  the 
adaptation  from  La  Mort  d'Achille  of  Thomas 
Corneille,  made  by  the  actor  Hatchett,  and 
played  by  his  own  company,  is  interesting 
because  it  is  the  last  tragedy  translated  by  an 
actor  for  his  own  use.  It  is  indeed  one  of  the 
last  tragedies  translated  for  the  stage.      The 


MISCELLANEOUS  TRANSLATIONS  225 

period  of  the  literary  translation  pure  and  simple 
is  almost  at  hand. 

Nothing,  however,  could  be  farther  from 
a  literary  translation  than  this  adaptation  of 
Hatchett's.  It  is  not  only  put  together  solely 
for  actual  use  on  the  stage,  but  also  largely  with 
a  view  to  furnish  good  parts  to  the  actor  himself 
and  to  his  favorite  actress.  The  play  is  cut  to 
pieces  and  made  over  in  order  to  make  Achilles 
a  more  important  part  than  Corneille  had  con- 
ceived it,  as  the  actor-author  had  chosen  that 
r61e  for  himself.  This  is  not  a  matter  of  con- 
jecture, nor  a  conclusion  drawn  from  a  study  of 
the  play,  but  from  a  preface  of  Hatchett  himself, 
where  he  sets  forth  with  rare  naivete  the  reason 
for  his  changes.  Pyrrhus  (a  part  taken  by  a 
rival  actor)  is  kept  on  the  stage  so  constantly 
by  Corneille  in  the  first  act  "  as  to  become  tedi- 
ous to  the  audience."  "In  the  third  act  Cor- 
neille is  guilty  of  the  same  error  with  the  two 
former  acts  —  Pyrrhus  never  leaving  the  stage 
—  which  I  have  rectified  as  before.  In  the  fifth 
act  of  Corneille,  Achilles  does  not  appear  at  all, 
which  I  have  avoided,  he  making  the  second 
scene  of  this  act  proceeding  to  the  temple,  not 
being  willing   that   the  Audience   should  lose 


226     CORNEILLE  AND  RACINE  IN  ENGLAND 

sight  of  the  Hero  so  long  as  near  an  act  and  a 
half."  Nothing  could  be  a  plainer  concession 
to  the  "  star  "  system. 

The  fact  that  this,  like  all  the  other  similar 
works  of  this  period,  was  inspired  by  the  Dis- 
trest  Mother  is  shown  by  a  passage  later:  "It 
may  possibly  be  objected  that  in  the  chief 
characters  of  the  piece  I  have  only  imitated  Mr. 
Philips's  Distrest  Mother^  but  I  must  desire  such 
Gentlemen  to  remember  that  La  Mort  d^AchiUe 
by  M.  Corneille  was  wrote  some  time  before 
the  Andromaque  of  Racine,  tho'  I  shall  not  dis- 
own that  my  admiration  and  the  just  success  of 
that  play  encouraged  me  to  attempt  this  per- 
formance." A  little  farther  he  suggests  airily 
that  Corneille  received  various  embellishments 
from  his  own  pen,  in  the  way  of  improved  dic- 
tion, flowers  of  metaphor,  and  the  like. 

His  translation  is  in  reality  a  very  poor  one. 
The  changes  in  construction  are  very  ineptly 
planned,  and  the  versification  insignificant,  al- 
though at  times  attaining  the  interest  of  being 
really  bad  (Act  I.  Scene  1) : 

Aprfes  avoir  forcd  sa  colore  k  se  rendre 
L'iUustre  Briseis  a  droit  de  tout  pretendre. 


MISCELLANEOUS  TRANSLATIONS  227 

After  such  proofs  how  much  his  soul  is  yours 
What  can't  the  illustrious  Briseis  do  ? 

It  is  not  worth  while  analyzing  the  changes  in 
the  plot,  as  they  are  numerous  and  almost  with- 
out exception  actuated  by  the  same  small  actor- 
vanity  which  is  indicated  in  the  preface.  The 
scene  interpolated  in  the  fifth  act  to  bring 
Achilles  on  the  stage  is  an  especially  unfortu- 
nate change,  as  it  is  not  only  wholly  unnecessary 
but  delays  the  action. 

The  workmanship  is  poor  throughout  and 
the  production  deserves  no  attention.  Genest 
does  not  fail  in  his  usual  severe  judgment  of  a 
play  drawn  from  the  French,  but  the  weight 
of  his  displeasure  in  this  case  falls  on  what  is 
left  of  the  plan  of  the  original.  "  The  plot  is 
contemptible  to  the  last  degree;  mythological 
stories  even  when  judiciously  treated  rarely 
please;  but  when  the  principal  personage  is 
represented  contrary  to  received  notions,  they 
disgust."  1 

Baker  (BiograpMca  Dramaticd)  has  a  rather 
more  tolerant  attitude  toward  the  Rival  Father, 
and    says    moderately,    "Yet    on    the    whole 

1  Some  Account,  Vol.  III.  p.  281. 


228     CORNEILLE  AND  RACINE  IN  ENGLAND 

there  is  some  merit  in  it,  and  it  will  not  be 
saying  too  much  to  confess  that  there  have 
been  many  pieces  since  its  appearance  which 
have  not  been  so  deserving  of  approbation,  that 
have  met  with  good  success,"  —  a  charitable 
statement  which  it  is  difficult  to  believe. 


XV.     THE  ROMAN  FATHER 

The  first  translated  tragedy  to  appear  after 
Hatcliett's  Rival  Father  was  one  performed  in 
1750,  another  adaptation  from  Horace;  under  the 
title  of  The  Roman  Father,  This  was  another 
great  success,  almost  as  complete  as  the  Dis- 
trest  Mother,  and  with  almost  as  great  an 
influence  in  starting  up  an  interest  in  Racine 
and  Corneille. 

The  author,  William  Whitehead,  was  at  that 
time  a  rising  young  poet  of  thirty-five,  a  Cam- 
bridge graduate,  who  although  the  son  of  a 
baker  moved  in  the  most  aristocratic  circles, 
and  who  seven  years  after  the  production  of 
his  Roman  Father  was  to  become  Poet  Lau- 
reate. Garrick  was  a  friend  of  his,  and  it  was 
at  Drury  Lane  under  Garrick's  management  that 
his  tragedy  was  presented.  Success  was  imme- 
diate and  continuous.  The  Gentleman's  Maga- 
zine for  March,  1750  —  the  issue  following  the 
play  —  reprinted  in  full  the  prologue  and 
epilogue  and  gave  an  account  of  the  history 
229 


230     CORNEILLE  AND  RACINE  IN  ENGLAND 

which  was  the  basis  of  the  plot.  The  Monthly 
Review  for  the  same  month  gave  ten  full  pages 
to  elaborate  criticism  and  comment.  Three 
pamphlets  were  published  directly,  criticising 
and  commending  the  play  —  a  sure  sign  of  the 
prominence  attained  by  the  tragedy.  There  is 
every  indication  that  the  performance  was  con- 
sidered one  of  the  notable  ones  of  the  time. 
And  this  was  not  merely  a  temporary  success. 
It  was  played  for  a  very  long  run  at  first,  and 
then,  as  a  stock  play,  it  was  presented  at  inter- 
vals of  rarely  more  than  two  years  until  1809. 
This  and  the  Bistrest  Mother  are  by  far  the 
most  popular  of  the  English  adaptations  of 
Racine  and  Corneille,  and  it  is  a  compliment 
to  English  taste  that  they  are  taken  from  the 
masterpieces  of  their  respective  authors. 

The  cast  at  Drury  Lane  on  the  evening  of 
February  24,  1750,  was  almost  as  distinguished 
as  that  at  the  same  theatre  thirty-eight  years 
before,  at  the  premiere  of  Ambrose  Philips's 
tragedy.  Horatius  was  played  by  Garrick,  a 
role  which  was  among  his  most  admired  crea- 
tions, and  which  was  commented  upon  in  most 
eulogistic  terms  by  contemporary  critics.  The 
dramatic  critic  for  the  Monthly  Review  carried 


THE   ROMAN  FATHER  231 

his  admiration  for  Garrick's  acting  in  this  part 
so  far  as  to  attribute  the  success  of  the  play 
almost  entirely  to  it.  Criticising  severely 
Whitehead's  rendering  of  the  famous  Qu'il 
mourUt!  by  the  more  lengthy  He  might  have 
died!  he  says,  "It  is  true,  indeed,  the  senti- 
ment could  not  but  call  forth  a  thunder  of 
applause  when  we  heard  *  He  might  have 
dyed  ! '  pronounced  with  all  the  energy  that 
the  best  player  of  the  present  or  perhaps  of  any 
age  could  give  it." 

The  younger  Horatius  ^  was  played  by  Barry, 
and  Horatia  by  Mrs.  Pritchard.  The  perform- 
ance must  have  been  characterized  by  all  of 
Garrick's  skill,  not  only  as  an  actor  but  as  a 
manager. 

The  translation  is  singularly  faithful  to  the 
spirit  of  its  original,  inasmuch  as  the  keynote 
of  the  whole  production  in  English  as  in 
French  is  fiery  patriotism.  The  prologue  and 
epilogue  dwell  upon  the  lesson  of  devotion  to 
one's  country  which  is  inculcated  in  the  play. 
While  neither  prologue  nor  epilogue  have  any 
special  literary  value,  they  are  interesting  as 

1  Contrary  to  the  Erench  usage  in  regard  to  this  tragedy, 
the  title  rCle  is  that  of  the  elder  of  the  two  Horaces. 


232    CORNEILLE  AND  RACINE  IN  ENGLAND 

being  the  rare  examples  of  their  kind,  written 
for  these  severe  French  masterpieces,  without 
coarseness  or  vulgarity. 

The  play  is  "  addressed  to  the  Honourable 
Thomas  Villiers,"  one  of  Whitehead's  aristo- 
cratic patrons.  There  is  an  "  Advertisement " 
in  which  the  author  explains  the  relation  of  his 
play  to  Corneille's  in  the  following  terms: 
"  The  Author  of  the  Roman  Father  thinks  it 
proper  to  acquaint  the  public  that  he  never 
should  have  thought  of  writing  a  play  on  the 
following  subject  had  he  not  read  first  the 
celebrated  Horace  of  M.  Corneille  and  admired 
his  management  of  some  capital  parts  of  the 
story.  They  will  accordingly  find  him  tracing 
his  original  very  closely,  with  some  few  altera- 
tions in  the  latter  end  of  the  third  act  and  the 
beginning  of  the  fourth.  In  the  other  acts  he 
could  only  introduce  occasional  imitations. 
The  difference  of  his  plan  and  characters  would 
not  admit  of  a  strict  adherence,  and  often  re- 
quired a  total  deviation.  He  can  only  add  that 
it  was  his  endeavor  to  make  the  Father  the 
principal  personage  and  to  show  him  in  every 
light  his  peculiar  situation  and  variety  of  dis- 
tress   would    allow   of."     The  changes,  as  he 


THE  ROMAN  FATHER  233 

indicates,  are  considerable,  the  most  important 
being  the  omission  of  the  family  of  the  Curiace 
altogether.  The  list  of  characters  in  the 
Roman  Father  is  as  follows  : 

Tullus  Hostilius :  King  of  Rome. 
Horatius:  A  Roman  Senator. 
Publius  Horatius :  His  Son. 
Valerius :  A  young  Patrician. 
Horatia :  Daughter  to  Horatius. 
Valeria :  Sister  to  Valerius. 

Sabine  and  Curiace  are  omitted,  and  Valeria 
takes  the  r61e  of  Julie.  Horatia  is  Camille. 
Otherwise  the  relations  are  just  as  they  are 
in  the  French  original.  In  the  criticisms  of 
the  play  there  are  various  opinions  as  to  the 
advisability  of  thus  omitting  two  of  the  chief 
characters,  and  confining  the  interest  to  Rome 
and  to  one  family.  Genest  says,  "  Whitehead 
has  been  criticised  for  omitting  this  circumstance 
as  being  a  great  exaggeration  of  the  distress  ; 
he  has,  however,  acted  judiciously,  as  the  thing 
is  a  mere  poetical  fiction  and  as  the  character  of 
Publius  Horatius  is  sufficiently  savage  as  it  now 
stands."  ^ 

The    BiograpMca    Dramatica^  on    the   other 

1  Some  Account,  Vol.  IV.  p.  296. 


234    CORNEILLE  AND  RACINE  IN  ENGLAND 

hand,  remarks,  "  It  must  be  confessed  we  can- 
not help  wishing  he  had  followed  even  more 
closely  the  plan  of  that  very  capital  writer  in 
the  conduct  of  the  piece,  since  ...  he  has  de- 
prived himself  of  the  opportunity  of  throwing 
in  that  variety  of  incident  and  contrast  of 
character  which  Corneille's  play  is  possessed 
of."  The  critic  of  the  Monthly  Review  says 
that  Whitehead  is  indebted  to  Corneille  for 
every  good  passage  in  the  play.  "  The  audience, 
when  we  saw  it  acted,  never  gave  one  signal  of 
their  approbation  (except  when  the  masterly 
manner  of  the  performance  de'serv'd  it),  but  on 
passages  that  were  translated  from  the  French 
writer."  After  its  criticism,  the  Biographica 
Dramatica  adds  gravely,  "  In  some  respects 
the  play  before  us  has  the  advantage  of  the 
French  play,  the  declamatory  parts  in  the 
latter  being  too  long  and  diffuse  for  giving 
pleasure  in  a  theatrical  representation.  There 
are  also  more  poetical  beauties  in  the  language 
of  Mr.  Whitehead  than  in  that  of  Corneille's 
tragedy,  and  indeed  it  may  be  ranked  amongst 
the  best  of  the  dramatic  pieces  of  this  some- 
what unprolific  age."  Genest  reaches  what  is 
for   him   almost   enthusiasm   in  speaking  of   a 


THE   ROMAN  FATHER  235 

translation  of  this  kind.  He  says,  "It  is  a 
moderate  tragedy." 

The  great  success  of  this  play  seems  to  have 
been  that  it  furnished  an  extraordinarily  good 
role  for  Garrick  and  actors  of  his  school.  Like 
The  Rival  Father  of  Hatchett,  it  was  so  twisted 
from  its  original  plan  by  this  idea  that  it 
can  scarcely  be  called  a  translation  at  all ; 
it  is  more  a  rewriting  of  the  same  story  as 
Corneille's. 

The  great  popularity  of  The  Roman  Father 
aroused  again  the  enthusiasm  of  translators, 
and  for  the  third  time  a  little  cycle  of  English 
renderings  of  Corneille  and  Racine  ran  its 
course.  This  impulse  was  much  feebler  than 
that  communicated  by  Mrs.  Philips's  success 
with  Pompey^  or  by  Ambrose  Philips's  Distrest 
Mother.  With  each  recurrence  the  force  of 
the  impetus  was  weaker  and  ended  in  more 
complete  stagnation. 

Whitehead's  adaptation  was  presented  in 
1750.  Three  years  later  Dr.  Young  (he  of 
the  Night  Thoughts^  drew  out  of  its  obscurity 
a  translation  of  Thomas  Corneille's  Persee  et 
Demetrius,  which  he  had  made  almost  thirty 
years  before,  and,  encouraged  by  Whitehead's 


236    CORNEILLE  AND  RACINE  IN  ENGLAND 

success,  presented  it  to  Garrick.  It  had  been 
written  before  he  took  orders  in  1728  (at  the 
beginning  of  his  friendship  with  Voltaire),  so 
that  it  is  really  one  of  the  translations  belong- 
ing in  the  company  of  the  Distrest  Mother; 
but  the  conscientious  clergyman  thought  play- 
writing —  even  tragedy  writing  —  was  not  a 
suitable  occupation  for  one  of  his  profession, 
and  stowed  The  Brothers  away  in  a  dark 
corner  until  he  was  seventy  years  old,  when 
he  decided  to  produce  it  for  the  benefit  of  the 
Society  for  the  Propagation  of  the  Gospel. 

Nothing  could  be  more  quaintly  amusing, 
although  almost  pathetic,  than  the  figure  of  the 
venerable  and  respected  Dr.  Young  plunged 
at  once  by  this  decision  into  acrid  green-room 
quarrels  and  into  troublesome  contact  with 
the  widely  known  George  Anne  Bellamy,  who 
was  certainly  the  strangest  companion  and 
associate  possible  for  the  elderly  clergyman. 
There  are  a  number  of  piquant  anecdotes,  well 
known  in  theatrical  gossip,  relative  to  the  in- 
corrigible madcap's  irreverent  attitude  toward 
the  author  of  The  Brothers.  She  objected  to 
a  line  she  was  to  speak  —  "I  will  speak  to  you 
in  thunder  !  "  —  as  too  swelling  a  metaphor  for 


THE  ROMAN  FATHER  237 

a  woman  to  employ.  Upon  being  impres- 
sively informed  by  the  dignified  author  that 
what  she  took  for  roughness  was  strength, 
she  asked  pertly  if  it  would  not  be  stronger 
if  "  and  lightning  "  were  added.  By  this  and 
similar  impertinent  flings  she  vastly  incensed 
the  old  Doctor,  and  her  famous  fascinating  per- 
sonality has  no  better  proof  of  its  power  than 
the  fact  that,  in  spite  of  these  passages  at 
arms,  she  prevailed  upon  him  to  force  Garrick 
to  allow  her  to  read  the  play  to  the  company 
and  to  assume  the  role  of  heroine.  This  last 
Garrick  did  with  ill  grace,  as  it  was  a  part  he 
thought  particularly  suitable  to  his  favorite 
Mrs.  Pritchard.  It  is  not  necessary  to  go  into 
more  of  the  disagreeable  incidents  which  pre- 
ceded the  appearance  of  the  tragedy,  and  which 
formed  the  uncomfortable  prelude  to  what  must 
have  been  a  very  disheartening  experience  for 
the  old  clergyman.  In  the  first  place,  the  play 
was  not  a  success.  Garrick  kept  it  running 
for  eight  nights,  but  the  audiences  were  small. 
Only  X400  were  cleared  for  the  Society  for  the 
Propagation  of  the  Gospel,  whose  evangelical 
name  sounds  so  oddly  out  of  place  among  the 
somewhat   unsavory  incidents  connected   with 


238    CORNEILLE  AND  RACINE  IN  ENGLAND 

this  attempt  to  benefit  it.  Dr.  Young,  hurt  at 
the  smallness  of  this  result,  added  X600  out  of 
his  own  pocket,  so  that  the  Society  received 
jeiOOO  from  him. 

What  must  have  been  a  final  touch  of  humil- 
iation to  the  refined  author  was  the  substitution 
by  Garrick  of  a  coarse,  indelicate  epilogue  for 
the  dignified,  historical  one  written  by  Young 
himself.  Doran  says,  speaking  of  the  lack  of 
success  of  The  Brothers^  "  Garrick  substituted 
a  coarse  epilogue  which  was  spoken  by  the 
sprightly  Kitty  Clive  who  loved  to  give  coarse- 
ness all  its  point,  but  it  could  not  save  the 
piece  !  "^     (This  last  clause  is  delicious.) 

Dr.  Young  himself  does  not  seem  to  be  wholly 
blameless  in  this  episode.  It  must  be  consid- 
ered distinctly  disingenuous  for  the  author  of 
the  Night  Thoughts  not  to  make  any  acknowl- 
edgment of  the  source  of  his  tragedy.  His 
title-page  gives  no  hint  of  it,  and  the  prologue,  in 
which,  on  similar  occasions,  grudging  reference 
is  sometimes  made  to  a  French  source,  seems  to 
imply  that  history  was  the  sole  source  of  the 
author's  plot.    This  is  not  an  omission  of  a  fact 

1  8ee  life  of  Young,  Toung^s  Complete  Works^  edited  by 
John  Doran,  London,  1854. 


THE  ROMAN  FATHER  239 

that  would  be  self-evident  to  every  one,  for  at 
least  two  magazines  of  the  time  (the  Monthly 
Review  and  the  Grentleman'' s  Magazine^  appar- 
ently do  not  know  that  the  play  is  not  original 
with  Dr.  Young,  and  Genest  himself  says  that 
the  addition  of  the  character  of  Erixene  is  a 
good  invention  of  Dr.  Young's.^ 

For  what  the  good  Doctor  actually  did  — 
namely,  adapt  Per  see  et  Demetrius  —  he  de- 
serves a  great  deal  of  credit.  It  is  one  of  the 
best  revamped  French  tragedies  of  the  cen- 
tury. After  the  halting  efforts  of  the  very 
mediocre  men  of  letters  whose  translations  come 
before  The  Brothers,  it  is  a  satisfaction  to  find 
one's  self  dealing  with  a  versifier  of  real  talent 
and  taste. 

Dr.  Young  does  not  make  a  close  translation, 
although  he  follows  the  story  with  commendable 
fidelity.  He  uses  his  original  with  great  free- 
dom and  he  made  a  tragedy  so  far  from  the 
French  in  many  instances  that  it  almost  de- 
serves the  title  of  an  original  traged}^  and  per- 
haps is  as  good  a  one  as  Thomas  Corneille's. 
It  has  some  passages  of  very  solid  worth,  in  its 
own  fashion  of  rhetoric,  and  it  cannot  be  said  of 
1  Some  Account,  Vol.  IV.  p.  360. 


240    CORNEILLE  AND  RACINE  IN  ENGLAND 

this  as  of  Whitehead's  production,  that  all  the 
good  speeches  are  taken  from  the  French. 
There  are,  however,  a  number  of  translated 
passages  (Act  II.  Scene  1): 

Think  you  he'll  wed  her  ?    N'o,  the  princess'  eye 
Makes  no  such  short-lived  conquest.     He'll  refuse, 
And  thus  effect  what  I  have  sought  in  vain. 
Yes,  he'll  refuse,  and  Dymas  in  his  wrath, 
Will  list  for  us  and  vengeance.^ 

The  disposition  of  scenes  is  often  quite  dif- 
ferent, and  the  individual  passages  are  shuffled 
about  in  a  confusing  way,  so  that  it  is  difficult 
to  know  exactly  how  much  or  what  Dr.  Young 
took  literally  from  Corneille. 

It  is  a  very  unusual  case.  A  man  of  about 
the  caliber  of  the  author  whom  he  copies,  adapts 
one  of  the  latter's  most  ordinary  works  and  pro- 
duces one  of  his  own  which  (as  nearly  as  may 
be   accurately   decided)  has   exactly  the  same 

Seigneur  k  cet  hymen  vous  croyez  qu'il  consente  ? 
Lui  qui  pour  la  Princesse  ardemment  inflaram^ 
Pretend  n'aimer  qu'autant  qu'il  se  connait  aim^  ? 
Non,  non,  je  n'en  mets  point  le  refus  en  balance. 
II  saura  de  Didas  rejetter  I'alliance 
Et  d'un  pareil  mepris  Didas,  trop  indigne, 
Contre  lui  par  nos  soins  sera  bientdt  gagn^. 


THE   ROMAN   FATHER  241 

value  as  the  original ;  which,  in  turn,  is  not  very- 
great. 

The  Brothers  has  a  special  interest  as  one  of 
the  last  translations  to  be  performed.  Although 
it  was  a  very  creditable  piece  of  work,  well 
acted,  and  with  a  great  name  back  of  it,  its 
lack  of  success  shows  the  decided  character  of 
the  movement  away  from  classic  tragedy.  The 
public  would  have  none  of  it  in  spite  of  these 
advantages,  and  treated  in  like  manner  the  next 
aspirant  for  stage  honors. 

Oddly  enough  this  attempt,  following  Dr. 
Young's,  is  again  concerned  with  a  play- writing 
clergyman  and  the  lively  Miss  Bellamy.  Dr. 
Philip  Francis  was  an  ambitious  Irishman, 
ordained  in  the  Irish  branch  of  the  English 
church,  and  determined  to  make  his  way  in 
London  social  life.  He  tried  school  teaching 
for  a  time,  and  Gibbon  was  one  of  his  pupils. 
But  this  did  not  succeed,  and  he  turned  his 
attention  to  adapting  plays  from  the  French. 
In  1752  he  turned  a  French  comedy  into  a 
tragedy,  managed  to  get  it  presented  at  Drury 
Lane,  and  was  astonished  at  its  complete  fail- 
ure. In  1754  he  tried  again,  taking  the  Max- 
imian  of  Thomas  Corneille  and  making  it  over 

B 


242    CORNEILLE  AND  RACINE  IN  ENGLAND 

into  a  tragedy  which  he  called  Constantine, 
This  also  was  a  failure,  and  the  second  rebuff 
disheartened  Dr.  Francis  completely.  But  of 
this  experience  came  the  best  fortune  of  his 
life  —  his  acquaintance  with  George  Anne  Bel- 
lamy, kind-hearted  as  she  was  capricious,  who 
took  pity  on  the  unsuccessful,  middle-aged 
clergyman,  and  secured  for  him  the  position 
of  private  chaplain  to  Lady  Caroline  Fox;  a 
position  where  he  made  powerful  friends,  and 
where  he  was  soon  so  happily  prosperous  as  to 
think  no  more  of  preparing  French  tragedy  for 
the  English  stage  :  a  state  of  mind  which  occa- 
sioned no  great  loss  to  the  latter. 

Constantine  is  so  free  an  adaptation  as  scarcely 
to  come  under  the  head  of  translation  at  all, 
but  it  is  by  no  means  so  good  as  Dr.  Young's 
Brothers,  For  one  thing,  there  are  various 
inconsistencies  in  the  action,  which  are  caused 
by  deviating  from  the  plot  of  the  original  and 
by  carelessly  preserving  entire,  in  the  transla- 
tion, speeches  which  refer  to  facts  unknown  to 
the  English  auditor.  The  style  is  confused  and 
bombastic,  even  more  than  was  the  fashion, 
although  technically  correct  enough. 

The  Grentleman's  Magazine  says  that  it  failed 


THE  ROMAN  FATHER  243 

from  lack  of  action,  which  is  of  course  not  Dr. 
Francis's  fault.  The  Monthly  Review  attributes 
its  failure  to  poor  acting.  Mr.  Barry  as  Con- 
stantine  was  excellent  and  Miss  Bellamy  as 
Fulvia  outshone  herself,  but  the  rest  "were 
quite  unequal  to  their  task."  It  is  intimated 
that  some  underhand  wire-pulling  behind  the 
scenes  was  responsible  for  this  deplorable  state 
of  things,  and  that  the  failure  would  not  have 
been  so  marked  had  not  Garrick,  Mrs.  Gibber, 
and  Mossop  chosen  that  time  to  appear  in  a  new 
tragedy,  Virginia^  which  quite  eclipsed  Con- 
stantine.  However  that  may  be,  Constantine 
was  a  very  great  failure,  and  closed  the  presen- 
tations from  Gorneille  and  Racine  in  anything 
but  a  burst  of  glory. 

After  Dr.  Francis,  the  next  writer  to  try 
tragedy  was  one  S.  Aspinwall,  of  whom  no 
more  seems  to  be  known  than  that  he  wrote 
and  published  in  1765  a  translation  of  Rodo- 
gune^  under  the  same  title.  While  his  re- 
production of  this  great  tragedy  is  by  no 
means  a  masterpiece,  his  preface  to  it  is  unique 
and  deserves  reproduction  in  full.  "  Having 
seen  the  Distrest  Mother  so  finely  translated 
and  so  well  received  on  our  stage,  tho'  Done 


^  ^  K  r   ^ 


i24l    CORNEILLE  AND  EACINE  IN  ENGLAND 

almost  verbatim  from  the  French  of  Racine 
by  Mr.  Philips,  I  had  a  mind  to  try  how 
Rodogune  might  appear  in  an  English  dress 
from  Mons.  Corneille.  My  friends  tell  me 
in  some  parts  the  translation  is  stronger 
than  the  original.  If  so,  I  will  impute  it 
merely  to  our  language  being  more  nervous 
than  the  French  and  to  the  translator's  being 
unconfined  by  the  fetters  of  Rhyme  in  which 
the  original  is  written  ;  If  it  should  be  found 
to  have  equal  spirit  with  it,  I  shall  be  satisfied 
and  so  perhaps  will  the  reader.  So  fine  a 
tragedy  I  at  first  thought  shou'd  be  tried  at 
both  Theatres  ;  but  whether  that,  as  some  say, 
nothing  now  goes  down  but  singsong,  and  that 
there  are  more  temples  open  to  sound  than 
sense  ;  or  whether  (as  I  was  told  by  some) 
they  were  really  pre-engaged ;  or  (as  by  others) 
there  were  too  long  speeches  in  it  or  too  much 
sentiment ;  too  much  talking  and  too  little 
doing  or  bustle  in  it  ;  or  not  so  much  of  the 
latter  as  is  required  on  the  English  stage  ;  I 
here  give  it  however  to  the  public,  and  I  may 
say  almost  gratis.  If  there  be  not  in  it  so 
much  show  and  bustle  as  some  of  our  English 
pieces,  of  guards,   trumpets,  processions,  illu- 


THE  ROMAN  FATHER  246 

minated  temples  etc.,  there  is  the  most  height- 
en'd  distress  throughout  ;  each  act  rising 
above  another  and  gradually  increasing  in  dis- 
tress .  .  .  and  if  the  eyes  and  ears  are  not 
entertained  so  much  with  shews  and  shouts, 
the  heart  is  everywhere  almost  continually 
struck  with  horror  and  pity." 

This  condescending  air  of  the  literary  ama- 
teur is  a  new  note  in  translations  from  Racine 
and  Corneille,  but  it  is  one  which  is  assumed 
more  or  less  continually  in  all  the  translations 
made  from  this  time  on.  The  reign  of  the 
gentleman  of  leisure  with  a  fad  has  come  in, 
and  the  hard-working,  practical  actors  or  man- 
agers occupy  themselves  no  more  with  work  of 
this  kind. 

Mr.  A  spin  wall's  translation,  while  not  at  all 
a  good  one,  is  diverting  in  the  extreme  by  the 
curious  way  in  which  he  puts  Corneille's 
swelling  seventeenth-century  verse  in  terms 
of  mincing  eighteenth-century  sentiment 
(Act  I.  Scene  1)  : 

The  nuptial  torch  shall  blaze  instead  of  war. 
Soft  bands  of  love  tye  up  the  arm  of  Mars.^ 

1  The  translator's  complete  lack  of  fidelity  is  seen  by  the 


246     CORNEILLE  AND  RACINE  IN  ENGLAND 

The  verse  is  written  with  smoothness,  but  is 
entirely  insignificant.  The  Monthly  Review  ^ 
devotes  two  lines  to  the  appearance  of  this 
publication,  in  which  the  following  laconic 
judgment  is  passed  :  "  This  is  a  very  indifferent 
translation  of  a  very  excellent  tragedy.  The 
translator's  name,  it  appears  from  the  preface, 
is  Aspinwall."  In  spite  of  the  grandiloquent 
preface,  this  notice  is  all  that  the  translation 
ever  deserved. 

Eleven  years  after  Rodogune  appeared  there 
was  published  by  one  T.  Bell,  printer,  two 
translations,  Phedra^  and  Melite,  which  are 
unique  from  some  points  of  view.  It  is  hard 
to  believe  that  more  absurd  examples  of  book- 
making  were  ever  produced.  They  are  so  bad 
as  to  be  very  entertaining,  although  it  per- 
plexes the  reader  to  conceive  any  reason  why 
they  should  have  ever  been  issued. 

In  the  newspaper  room  of  the  British  Museum 
there  are  twelve  quarto  tomes  of  material,  gath- 

fact  that  the  lines  which  seem  most  closely  comiected  to 

this  passage  are : 

Ce  grand  jour  oh  I'hymen,  ^touffant  la  vengeance, 
Entre  le  Parthe  et  nous  remet  1' intelligence. 

1  Old  series,  Vol.  XXXIII.  p.  85,  July,  1765. 


THE  KOMAN  FATHER  247 

ered  for  a  history  of  the  English  stage,  the  story 
of  whose  origin  may  possibly  furnish  a  clew  to 
this  mystery.  On  the  first  page  of  the  first  of 
these  mighty  volumes  the  patient  collector  ex- 
plains the  beginning  of  his  enterprise.  A  pub- 
lisher, having  picked  up  at  auction  some  plates 
for  engravings  relative  to  the  stage,  had  asked 
him  to  prepare  a  hastily  written  history  of  the 
English  stage  to  go  around  the  engravings. 

No  one  can  read  this  account  without  think- 
ing at  once  of  the  wonderful  frontispiece  of  this 
edition  of  Phedra^  which  is  as  unintelligible  as 
the  text,  and  feeling  sure  that  the  translation  was 
written  around  it.  The  only  difference  in  the 
two  cases  is  that  apparently  T.  Bell  desired 
that  his  matter  supplementary  to  the  illustra- 
tion should  be  prepared  over  night,  and  gave  it 
to  the  printer's  devil  to  do.  Nothing  else  will 
explain  such  lines  as  these  (Act  I.  Scene  3) : 

Phaedra.  Stop,  dear  (Enone.  My  strength  forsakes  me, 
My  eyes  grow  dim,  and  my  trembling  knees  totter  under 
Their  wretched  burden,  Alas ! 

(Enone.   All  Powerful  Gods!     Let  our  tears  appease 

you! 
Phaedra.   How  these  vain  and  gaudy  ornaments  en- 
cumber me ; 
They  may  adorn  the  external  part,  but  cannot  compose 


248     CORNEILLE  AND  RACINE  IN  ENGLAND 

The  afflicted  mind !     All,  all  disturb  and  conspires  to 
wound  your  unhappy  queen. 

Later  on  the  grammar  gives  way  entirely, 

Thrice  has  the  shades  of  night  spread  o'er  the  heavens 
Without  thy  wonted  rest,  and  thrice  the  sun  has 
Took  his  diurnal  course,  yet  thou  takest  no 
Nutriment  to  preserve  your  precious  life. 

Every  effort  to  discover  more  about  these 
extraordinary  productions  has  proved  fruitless. 
Apparently  no  reference  to  them  exists  in  any 
of  the  contemporary  periodicals.  Even  the 
London  Review^  edited  by  that  malicious  Ken- 
rick  to  whom  Macaulay  applied  the  ugly 
name,  loses  this  opportunity  for  a  scathing 
review.  They  seem  to  have  passed  absolutely 
unnoticed,  which  was  certainly  a  most  fortu- 
nate thing  for  their  publisher. 


XVI.     ESTHER  AND   ATHALIE 

As  might  be  expected,  the  life  of  Athalie  and 
Esther  in  English  was  quite  different  from 
that  of  other  French  tragedies.  It  was  sur- 
rounded by  an  atmosphere  other  than  that  of 
the  dramas  translated  for  the  stage.  From  the 
beginning  there  is  a  distinctly  clerical  air  about 
the  translators  of  Athalie^  even  when  they  are 
not  clergymen.  It  is  the  religious  element 
in  Racine's  great  masterpiece  which  attracts 
them. 

This  is  true  of  the  first  ^  of  the  line  as  well  as 
of  his  successors.  In  1722  there  was  published 
in  London,  Athaliah,  A  tragedy  translated  from 
the  French  of  Mo7isieur  Racine  by  Mr,  William 
Buncombe,     In  the  dedication  the  author  says 

1  Strictly  speaking  this  was  not  the  first,  as  several  years 
earlier  than  this  the  Countess  of  Winchilsea  had  prepared  a 
translation  of  part  of  the  fifth  scene  in  the  second  act  —  the 
famous  dream  of  Athalie.  This  was  published  with  her 
other  poems  in  1713.  The  author  is  the  same  who  was 
so  cruelly  satirized  by  Pope  in  the  comedy  Three  Hours 
after  Marriage^  mentioned  on  page  212. 
249 


250     CORNEILLE  AND  RACINE  IN  ENGLAND 

that  he  had  completed  the  translation  eight 
years  before  he  published  it,  which  would  make 
it  the  work  of  quite  a  young  man  —  twenty- 
four  or  five.  He  died  in  1769,  and  the  G-entle- 
man's  Magazine  for  the  same  year  (page  333) 
has  this  notice  :  "  Died,  Wm.  Buncombe,  Esq., 
in  the  eightieth  year  of  his  age,  universally 
known,  respected,  and  admired  for  his  amiable 
temper  and  many  ingenious  publications."  It 
is  already  shown  that  Athaliah  was  one  of  the 
earliest  of  these  "ingenious  publications,"  al- 
though before  that  he  had  translated  parts  of 
Horace.  His  best-known  work  is  a  translation 
and  adaptation  of  Voltaire's  Brutus, 

The  English  dress  which  he  gives  to  Athalie 
is  carefully  and  intelligently  wrought,  with 
occasional  touches  which  suggest  the  original. 
It  deserves  no  great  commendation  as  a  work 
of  art,  but  as  a  faithful,  close,  and  intelligible 
rendering  it  is  excellent.  His  translation  of 
the  famous  dream  of  Athalie  is  a  good  example 
of  the  conscientious  fidelity  of  Buncombe  (Act 
II.  Scene  5): 

'Twas  in  the  dead  of  Night  when  Horror  reigns 
My  Mother  Jezebel  appeared  before  me, 
Richly  adorned,  as  on  the  day  she  died. 


ESTHER  AND  ATHALIE  251 

Her  sorrows  had  not  damped  her  noble  Pride. 

She  even  still  retained  that  borrowed  Lustre 

Which  she  was  wont  to  spread  upon  her  cheeks 

To  make  Amends  for  the  Decays  of  Time. 

"  Tremble,  said  she,  O  Daughter  worthy  of  me, 

The  Hebrews*  cruel  God  prevails  against  thee, 

I  grieve  that  into  his  tremendous  Hands, 

My  Daughter,  thou  must  fall."    As  she  concluded 

These  words  so  full  of  Horror,  her  Shadow  seemed 

Forward  to  bend  and  bow  upon  my  Bed ; 

I  stretched  out  hastily  my  Arms  to  meet  her. 

But  Nothing  caught  beside  a  dreadful  Heap 

Of  Bones,  and  Mangled  Flesh,  bedaubed  with  Mire, 

Garments  all  dyed  with  Blood  and  shattered  Limbs 

Which  greedy  Dogs  did  eagerly  contend  for.^ 

1  C'etait  pendant  I'horreur  d'une  prof  on  de  nuit. 
Ma  mere  J6zabel  devant  moi  s'est  montree, 
Comme  au  jour  de  sa  mort  pompeusement  parde, 
Ses  malheurs  n'avaient  point  abattu  sa  fierte; 
Meme  elle  avait  encor  cet  eclat  emprunte 
Dont  elle  eut  soin  de  peindre  et  d'orner  son  visage. 
Pour  reparer  des  ans  I'iri'eparable  outrage ; 
"  Tremble,  m'a-t-elle  dit,  fille  digne  de  moi ; 
"  Le  cruel  Dieu  des  Juif s  I'emporte  aussi  sur  toi. 
"  Je  te  plains  de  tomber  dans  ses  mains  redoutables, 
"  Ma  fille."     En  achevant  ces  mots  epouvantables, 
Son  ombre  vers  mon  lit  a  paru  se  baisser ; 
Et  moi  je  lui  tendais  les  mains  pour  I'embrasser, 
Mais  je  n'ai  plus  trouve  qu'un  horrible  melange 
D'os  et  de  chairs  meurtris,  et  train es  dans  la  fange, 
Des  lambeaux  pleins  de  sang,  et  des  membres  affreux 
Que  des  chiens  devorants  se  disputaient  entre  eux. 


252      CORNEILLE  AND  RACINE  IN  ENGLAND 

It  is  difficult  to  form  an  independent  judg- 
ment of  the  intrinsic  merit  of  Buncombe's  work, 
because  of  the  wonder  of  the  reader  at  the  scru- 
pulous accuracy  of  a  rendering  like  this. 

With  the  beginning  of  the  nineteenth  century- 
there  appear  a  number  of  translations  of  the 
two  religious  dramas  of  Racine,  which  can  be 
advantageously  treated  in  a  group,  without 
going  into  detail.  In  1803  an  Edinburgh  firm 
printed  The  Sacred  Dramas  of  Esther  and 
Athalie.  The  name  of  the  translator  is  not 
given,  but  whoever  he  was  he  was  a  much 
better  literary  craftsman  than  Brereton,  for 
his  Esther  far  surpasses  that  of  the  eighteenth- 
century  translator.  It  is  close  and  faithful, 
and  yet  reasonably  smooth.  By  this  time, 
however,  modern  ideas  had  begun  to  come  in, 
and  faithfulness  is  not  a  quality  to  be  so  much 
remarked  upon,  as  denoting  an  unusual  quality 
in  the  aim  of  the  author.  The  Athalie^  pub- 
lished with  this,  is  also  a  creditable  piece  of 
work  and  a  very  fair  if  by  no  means  powerful 
rendering  of  the  original. 

In  1815,  again  in  Edinburgh,  there  appeared 
another  translation  of  Athalie  done  by  John 
Sheppard,  who  seems  to  have  been  a  nineteenth- 


ESTHER  AND  ATHALIE  253 

century  Duncombe.  He  was  a  rigid  Baptist, 
devoting  his  time  (as  the  Dictionary  of  National 
Biography  puts  it)  to  "  religious  authorship,  lay- 
preaching,  and  foreign  travel."  His  Thoughts 
Preparatory  to  Private  Devotion  was  a  very 
popular  book,  going  through  five  editions  in 
five  years.  The  very  title  of  such  a  book 
shows  what  element  in  Athalie  was  the  one 
inducing  him  to  translate  it. 

In  his  preface  he  says  that  he  was  not  aware 
of  a  previous  translation  of  Athalie  in  English 
until  he  had  almost  completed  his  own.  Then 
a  friend  showed  him  Buncombe's,  of  which  he 
speaks  in  the  following  terms :  "  This  piece 
(although  it  had  reached  a  third  edition  in 
1740)  did  not  appear  at  all  to  supersede  the 
present  attempt.  I  may  venture  to  pronounce 
it  a  servile  rendering  of  the  original  with  very 
disputable  claims  in  any  instance  to  the  title  of 
English  poetry."  After  this  it  is  to  be  ex- 
pected that  he  should  write  a  much  poorer 
translation  of  Duncombe,  which  indeed  he  does. 
The  Monthly  Review  (Vol.  LXXX.  p.  319),  in 
reviewing  the  work,  says,  "The  Spirit  of 
Racine's  Composition  has  been  more  success- 
fully imitated  than  its  harmony."     It  is  a  little 


254     CORNEILLE  AND  RACINE  IN  ENGLAND 

difficult  to  conceive  Athalie  without  its  har- 
mony, so  that  it  must  be  allowed  that  it  is  a 
rather  faulty  copy  which  John  Sheppard  pre- 
sented to  the  religious  world  of  his  day. 

In  1822  there  appeared  a  translation  of 
Athalie^  chiefly  interesting  for  its  delicious  pref- 
ace, which  is  worth  quoting.  The  title-page 
gives  no  idea  as  to  the  character  of  the  author 
beyond  the  colorless,  "  Translated  from  the 
French  of  J.  Racine  with  Notes  by  J.  C. 
Knight."  But  with  the  first  lines  of  the  pref- 
ace he  stands  revealed  with  the  utmost  clear- 
ness. "  It  will  be  necessarily  expected  that  a 
youth  of  seventeen  should  state  his  motives  for 
thus  obtruding  himself  upon  the  Public.  Being 
greatly  desirous  to  enter  the  Church,  he  has 
undertaken  the  translation  of  Racine's  Athaliah 
in  order  to  defray  a  part  of  the  expenses  of  an 
education  ...  it  is  this  motive  alone  which  has 
actuated  him  to  translate  this  tragedy  ;  for 
rather,  far  rather,  would  he  devote  his  youth  to 
the  acquirement  of  that  knowledge  which  will 
enable  him  to  discharge  the  duties  of  a  clergy- 
man with  propriety,  and  qualify  him  for  further 
usefulness.  The  writer  has  alluded  to  his  age, 
not  with  the  desire  of  exalting  this  publication 


ESTHER  AND  ATHALIE  255 

in  the  opinion  of  its  reader,  but  with  a  view  of 
obtaining  for  all  its  imperfections  and  impro- 
prieties those  allowances  which  he  hopes  will  be 
granted  to  his  youth  and  his  motives."  A  little 
further  on  he  speaks  of  his  pious  intention  to 
devote  no  time  to  the  attempt  to  reproduce  the 
mere  beauties  of  the  tragedy,  but  to  emphasiz- 
ing the  points  of  Jewish  history  involved. 

This  preface  has  been  reproduced  at  such 
length  because  it  seems  to  sum  up,  although  in 
an  exaggerated  way,  the  feeling  of  the  worthy 
translators  of  the  nineteenth  century,  who  be- 
stowed their  labors  upon  Athalie,  About  this 
particular  translation  there  is  little  to  be  said, 
except  that  it  is  not  quite  so  bad  as  one  would 
naturally  think  it,  from  this  introduction. 

From  this  time  on  there  are  many  translations 
of  Athalie^  but  almost  without  exception  the 
work  of  clergymen  or  school-teachers  with  more 
zeal  than  literary  ability.  It  seems  improbable 
that  any  of  these  works,  except  perhaps  Dun- 
combe's,  ever  had  any  name  or  influence,  and  it 
is  quite  certain  that  none  of  them  ever  came 
within  hailing  distance  of  the  theatre.  Con- 
sequently they  have  little  significance  as  far  as 
the  real  life  of  Racine  in  England  is  concerned. 


XVII.   THE  LAST  OF  THE  MOVEMENT 

During  the  last  quarter  of  the  eighteenth 
century,  the  history  of  the  translations  of 
Racine  and  Corneille  is  uneventful.  The 
movement  is  at  an  end.  The  attempt  of  the 
Restoration  translators  to  establish  French 
tragedy  in  English  literature  had  failed,  and 
the  attempt  of  the  early  eighteenth-century 
dramatist  to  put  it  on  the  English  stage  had 
fared  no  better. 

In  addition  to  the  obvious  reasons  for  this 
failure,  such  as  the  difference  in  taste  between 
the  two  nations  and  the  fact  that  translations 
rarely,  under  any  conditions,  become  a  real  part 
of  a  national  literature,  there  is  a  new  reason 
which,  in  itself,  would  have  been  sufficient  to 
put  an  end  to  the  movement.  That  is  the 
decline  of  the  art  of  reciting  verses  on  the 
stage.  Garrick's  wonderful  talent  as  a  panto- 
mimist,  and  the  school  of  actors  who  followed 
him,  had  put  out  of  fashion  the  measured  and 
harmonious  reading  of  noble  verses.  As  the  en- 
266 


THE  LAST  OF  THE  MOVEMENT  257 

tire  strength  of  the  French  classic  tragedy  lay- 
in  just  such  verses  and  in  the  opportunity  they 
gave  for  fine  declamation,  they  became  com- 
pletely foreign  to  the  sympathies  of  even  the 
cultured  people  who  had  admired  them  before. 
This  change  in  dramatic  ideals  was  by  no  means 
confined  to  England,  as  it  was  already  recog- 
nized by  many  of  the  leading  French  actors 
and  actresses  of  the  later  eighteenth  century; 
but  it  was  a  change  naturally  more  in  accord 
with  English  taste  than  with  French,  and  as 
a  consequence  was  carried  out  to  its  fullest  ex- 
tent more  rapidly  in  British  theatres.  It  may 
seem  a  strange  statement  that  the  generation 
which  heard  John  Kemble's  stately  declama- 
tion and  that  of  his  school,  should  have  drifted 
away  from  an  admiration  for  dramatic  verse. 
But  it  must  be  remembered  that  a  statement 
of  this  kind  is  always  relative.  In  these  days 
of  colloquial,  free-and-easy  delivery  of  Shake- 
spearian verse,  the  records  of  Kemble's  meas- 
ured reading  sound  classic.  But  proofs  are 
not  wanting  that  the  older  and  more  conserva- 
tive people  at  the  beginning  of  the  nine- 
teenth century  looked  upon  the  school  of  actors 
of    that    time   as   lacking    in   dignity.      Some 


258     CORNEILLE  AND  RACINE  IN  ENGLAND 

remarks  from  the  preface  to  a  translation  from 
the  French,  written  by  a  man  of  taste  and 
discrimination,  show  clearly  this  tendency 
(Sir  Brooke  Boothby,  page  272). 

The  iron  rule  of  the  hemistich  was  broken, 
verses  were  no  longer  recited  by  rule  but  ac- 
cording to  the  sense  —  carrying  the  voice  over 
the  caesura  if  the  sense  demanded  it.  This 
again  is  a  relative  statement,  and  must  be 
taken  as  such.  The  actors  of  that  time  un- 
doubtedly made  it  appear  that  they  were  recit- 
ing poetry  and  not  prose,  which  is  more  than 
can  be  said  of  present-day  Thespians;  but  in 
comparison  with  the  Bettertons,  Booths,  and 
Mrs.  Bracegirdles  of  an  earlier  period  they 
probably  sounded  very  conversational. 

From  1776  on  there  are  no  famous  names 
among  the  translators,  and  very  few  names 
of  any  kind.  The  virtuous  Hannah  Brand 
takes  time  from  her  school-teaching  in  1798  to 
tincture  Corneille's  Bon  Sanche  IfArragon  with 
British  sentimentality,  and  in  1802  an  anony- 
mous translator  produces  a  fair  rendering  of 
the  Qid.  These  two  works  represent  all  that 
was  done  with  the  elder  Corneille. 

In  1813  Britannicus  attracts  the  attention  of 


THE  LAST  OF  THE   MOVEMENT  259 

a  country  gentleman  of  mildly  literary  taste, 
and  Esther  is  translated  the  same  year  ;  and 
there  is  an  end  of  the  appearances  of  Racine 
in  English — with  the  very  notable  exception 
of  Athalie. 

Of  the  eight  translations  from  Thomas  Cor- 
neille,  three  were  done  after  1777,  two  from 
Ariane  alone.  In  1793  one  of  these  adaptions 
appeared  under  the  title  of  The  Rival  Sisters., 
fathered  by  Arthur  Murphy.  This  was  pub- 
lished in  a  seven- volume  edition  of  Murphy's 
works  in  1786,  but  was  not  played  till  March 
18,  1793.  This  is  the  last  of  the  translations 
produced  on  the  stage,  and  in  this  partakes  of 
the  nature  of  the  preceding  period.  It  bears 
the  stamp  of  the  eighteenth  century  in  another 
way;  it  alters  the  original  to  suit  English  taste. 
Murphy  speaks  of  this  with  delicious  frank- 
ness, in  the  preface.  He  begins  by  saying  that 
Madame  de  Sevigne,  by  her  account  of  the  re- 
ception of  the  original  in  Paris  and  of  the  great 
part  Mile,  de  Champsmesle  played  in  the  suc- 
cess of  that  flat  performance,  inspired  him  to 
reproduce  it  in  English  for  Mrs.  Siddons's 
benefit.  He  continues ;  "  Shall  the  present 
writer  flatter  himself  that  he  has  removed  the 


260    CORNEILLE  AND  RACIN^  IN  ENGLAND 

vices  of  the  first  concoction  and  substituted 
what  is  better?  He  certainly  has  endeavored 
to  do  it.  For  this  Purpose  a  New  Fable  was 
required.  The  progress  of  the  business  re- 
quired to  be  conducted  in  a  different  manner, 
with  more  rapidity  and  without  those  languid 
scenes  which  weaken  the  interest.  .  .  .  The 
Author  does  not  scruple  to  say  that  he  entered 
into  competition  with  the  original,  that  he  has 
aimed  at  a  better  tragedy." 

He  has  "conducted  the  business  with  more 
rapidity"  by  introducing  a  new  minor  char- 
acter, by  adding  political  complications  to  the 
love  story,  and  by  many  other  devices  of  a  con- 
fusing nature.  In  general,  however,  the  con- 
duct of  the  play  is  very  much  the  same  as  in 
the  original,  and  it  has  the  same  ending  except 
that  it  is  very  much  more  long  drawn  out. 

Genest  ^  is  very  severe  on  this  tragedy,  calling 
it  "  dull  and  uninteresting,"  "  subject  badly 
chosen,"  "  Shakespeare  himself  could  hardly 
have  written  a  good  tragedy  on  so  fabulous  a 
story."  Genest's  constitutional  dislike  to  any- 
thing resembling  French  tragedy  may  account 
for  some  of  the  harshness  of  this  judgment;  but 

1  Some  Account,  Vol.  VII.  pp.  90-91. 


THE  LAST  OF   THE   MOVEMENT  261 

Murphy's  changes  in  the  story,  his  mediocre 
versification  and  management  of  the  plot,  were 
in  reality  anything  but  successful.  The  trag- 
edy obtained  some  public  favor,  however,  Mrs. 
Siddons  playing  Ariane  and  Kemble  Pirithous. 
The  very  length  of  Genest's  severe  notice  is  a 
witness  to  the  fact  that  it  did  not  pass  entirely 
unnoticed. 

Whatever  the  degree  of  success  which 
Murphy's  arrangement  of  Ariane  secured,  it 
was  enough  to  induce  another  author  to  make 
a  translation  of  the  same  tragedy.  ^  In  1795, 
the  Rev.  Mr.  Stratford,  Rector  of  Gallstow, 
County  Westmeath,  Ireland,  was  brought  to 
the  attention  of  the  public  by  the  publication 
of  a  volume  containing  an  original  tragedy. 
Lord  Mussel^  and  a  translation  of  Ariane  under 
the  title  of  The  Labyrinth.  In  all  probability 
neither  was  ever  performed,  unless  perhaps  by 
friendly  amateurs  in  Ireland.  An  anecdote 
told  by  The  Mirror  about  Mr.  Stratford,  makes 
it  almost  certain  that  they  never  received  any 
encouragement  in  England.  In  1784  he  had 
written  his  heavy  tragedy  Lord  Bussel^  which 
he  was  sure  would  make  a  great  success,  and 
gathering    together    all   his  literary   baggage. 


262     CORNEILLE  AND  RACINE  IN  ENGLAND 

which  then  consisted  of  five  tragedies  and  five 
comedies,  he  went  to  London  to  have  his  works 
performed  at  Covent  Garden  and  Drury  Lane. 
Harris  was  manager,  and  to  him  Stratford  ap- 
plied. There  were  no  possibilities  in  any  of  the 
plays,  and  the  manager's  trained  eye  saw  that 
at  once  ;  but  the  reverend  gentleman  was  so 
persistent,  that  at  last  he  prevailed  on  Harris 
to  listen,  while  he  read  aloud  one  of  his  pro- 
ductions. Harris  composed  himself,  and  listened 
patiently  through  four  acts  of  a  comedy.  At 
this  point  he  inquired  gravely,  "  Don't  you 
think  it  time  to  bring  in  Lord  Russel  ? " 

"  Lord  Russel !  "  cried  the  astounded  play- 
wright, "  Sir,  this  is  a  comedy  I  " 

"Ah?"  said  Harris,  "I  thought  you  were 
reading  me  the  tragedy." 

This  incident  is  said  to  have  dampened  Mr. 
Stratford's  ardor  effectually,  and  he  went  back 
to  Ireland,  much  depressed  by  the  low  condi-^ 
tion  of  the  English  stage. 

His  works  seem  to  have  been  printed  for  the 
first  time  after  his  death,  when  they  appeared 
for  the  benefit  of  his  sister,  printed  by  subscrip- 
tion. There  were  ostensibly  two  editions  made 
at  the  same  time,  one  English  and  one  Irish, 


THE  LAST  OF  THE  MOVEMENT  263 

but  there  seems  no  doubt  but  that  they  are 
the  same  with  a  different  title-page  and  list  of 
subscribers. 

The  play  itself  is  a  most  commonplace  produc- 
tion. Stratford  says  with  a  self-satisfied  smirk 
in  the  preface,  "  Whilst  the  translator  has  en- 
deavored to  preserve  inviolate  the  reputation 
of  so  eminent  a  French  writer,  he  has  likewise 
been  ambitious  to  assert  the  superiority  of  the 
British  Drama." 

The  following  extract,  which  on  the  whole  is 
the  best  speech  in  the  translation,  may  bear  its 
own  testimony  to  the  capacity  of  Mr.  Stratford 
to  assert  this  superiority  (Act  IV.  Scene  3)  : 

Ariadne.  Before  that  happens  be  assured,  my  Phaedra, 
The  world  shall  know  what  Ariadne  dares, 
Who  would  be  made  the  scorn  of  public  rumour? 
'Tis  fit  I  should  disguise  my  indignation, 
Theseus  for  once  shall  teach  me  to  dissemble, 
I'll  make  him  think  I  approve  his  marriage ; 
The  stroke  delayed,  shall  fall  with  greater  ruin.^ 

1  It  is  almost  impossible  to  select  the  French  lines  which 
may  have  served  as  model  for  this  outburst,  but  diligent 
search  throughout  the  whole  of  this  scene  has  resulted  in 
the  selection  of  the  following  detached  lines : 

Entre  les  bras  d'une  autre  !    Avant  ce  coup,  ma  soeur, 
J'aime,  je  suis  trahie,  on  connaitra  mon  coeur. 


264    CORNEILLE  AND  RACINE   IN   ENGLAND 

This  is  not  only  weak  in  itself,  but  is  a  most 
mutilated  and  garbled  reproduction  of  the 
original,  and  shows  that  the  clergyman  had 
no  idea  of  faithfulness  in  his  translation  and 
no  appreciation  of  the  task  he  had  set  himself. 
The  play  itself  has  no  significance  beyond  show- 
ing into  what  hands  translations  had  fallen. 

The  translator  of  the  play  next  in  chrono- 
logical order  is  a  very  quaint  and  picturesque 
figure  in  English  life  of  that  time.  The  worthy 
Hannah  Brand,  schoolmistress  and  actress,  prude 
and  tragedy  queen,  authoress  and  reformer  of 
stage  morals,  gave  occupation  to  many  of  the 
anecdote  writers  of  those  gossipy  days.  She 
kept  a  school  for  young  ladies  in  Norwich,  but 
abandoned  this  for  the  stage.  She  acted  the 
leading  part  in  a  play  of  her  own  composition, 
but  her  stiffness  and  self-conceit,  lack  of  expe- 
rience and  of  flexibility,  made  her  failure  as  an 
actress  only  a  matter  of  time.  Genest  gives 
some  quaint  reasons  for  her  lack  of  success. 
"Her    stage    dresses    were    elegant,   but    the 

Moins  I'amour  outrage  fait  voir  d'emportement, 
Plus  quand  le  coup  approche,  il  frappe  sftrement. 
C'est  par  1^  qu'affectant  une  douleur  aisee 
Je  feins  de  consentir  ^  I'hymen  de  Thes6e. 


THE  LAST  OF  THE  MOVEMENT  265 

effect  of  them  was  spoiled  by  her  wearing  of 
stays  in  the  old  fashion."  ^  Her  objection  to 
low-cut  dresses  was  unalterable.  The  Bio- 
graphica  Dramatica^  however,  says  that  her 
acting  was  marked  by  discrimination;  and 
Wilkinson  says  that  apart  from  her  high-flown 
melodramatic  airs  she  was  a  woman  of  really 
sound  understanding.  Genest^  characterizes 
her  admirably,  "a  sensible  woman  with  great 
oddities." 

These  peculiarities  of  her  person  make  not 
only  highly  entertaining  reading,  but  throw  a 
light  on  some  characteristics  of  her  translation 
of  Don  Sanche,  which  she  published  in  a  volume 
called  Brand's  Plays  and  Poems  in  1798. 

The  play  itself  she  calls  The  Conflict^  or  Love, 
Honour,  and  Pride,  a  title  which  strikes  at 
once  the  note  of  the  whole  performance.  She 
makes  no  words  about  "heightening  the 
colour,"  as  does  Murphy,  but  evidently  she 
had  the  same  end  in  view.  Her  methods 
differ  from  his,  however,  and  consist  of  inter- 
polating English  sentimentality  whenever  it  is 
possible.  No  more  curious  contrast  could  be 
found  than  the  leading  characteristics  of  the 
1  Some  Account,  Vol.  VII.  p.  49.        2  n^i^^^  p.  402. 


266    CORNEILLE  AND  RACINE  IN  ENGLAND 

original  and  those  which  Miss  Brand  saw  fit 
to  add.  The  story  which  Corneille  has  to  tell, 
by  reason  of  its  Spanish  nature,  lends  itself 
easily  to  an  exaggerated  development  of  the 
peculiar  qualities  of  Corneille.  Exaltation,  the 
loftiest  sense  of  personal  dignity,  the  most 
extravagant  ideas  of  the  divine  right  of  kings, 
the  most  punctilious  delicacy  in  matters  of 
honor  —  all  the  traits  most  characteristic  of 
Corneille  and  of  the  whole  French  seven- 
teenth century  —  are  present.  In  the  inter- 
val of  a  century  and  three-quarters  that 
had  elapsed  before  Miss  Brand  arrived  on  the 
scene  and  turned  her  attention  to  Corneille, 
literary  and  emotional  fashions  had  completely 
changed.  It  was  no  longer  the  mode  to  have 
the  emotions  under  strict  control,  it  was  a 
reproach.  Rousseau  and  Sterne  had  made 
yielding  to  every  sensation  to  be  a  virtue. 
Personal  dignity  and  reserve  were  synonymous 
with  insensibility,  and  that  was  a  crime. 

In  addition,  the  British  public  has  always 
been  one  to  be  deeply  moved  by  banalities 
about  the  domestic  affections.  In  the  story  of 
Bon  Sanche  d'Arragon,  which  turns  largely 
on   the    recognition    of    a   long-lost  son  by  a 


THE  LAST   OF  THE   MOVEMENT  267 

mother  and  his  noble  refusal  to  disown  a 
lowly  but  virtuous  foster-father,  Miss  Brand 
saw  great  opportunities,  and  the  play  as 
she  printed  it  presents  the  most  curious  mix- 
ture of  the  two  opposing  schools  of  emotion. 
Where  she  actually  translates  she  does  it  well, 
in  flowing  blank  verse  of  considerable  spirit  and 
fidelity,  and  she  reproduces  in  no  slight  degree 
the  somewhat  florid  dignity  of  the  original. 
But  where  she  amplifies  and  adds  speeches  and 
scenes  of  her  own,  they  are  of  a  weakly  emo- 
tional character,  startling  to  find  in  a  work 
supposedly  by  Corneille.  The  second  scene 
in  her  fourth  act  is  of  her  own  invention.  It 
begins  with  a  stage  direction  as  out  of  charac- 
ter as  possible  for  a  queen,  for  a  Spanish  queen, 
and  for  a  Corneille  Spanish  queen  : 

(^Queen  flies  to  Carlos  with  open  arms.     He  retreats  /) 
Am  l&o  blessed  to  have  a  son  like  Thee ! 

The  rest  of  the  scene  is  continued  in  a  most 
unreservedly  emotional  style.  Later,  in  Act  V. 
Scene  5,  there  are  to  be  found  examples  of  her 
amplification,  and  also  of  how  closely  and  well 
she  could  at  times  follow  her  model : 


268     CORNEILLE  AND  RACINE  IN  ENGLAND 

I  am  this  shepherd's  Son.     He  is  no  cheat, 
No  infamous  impostor,  though  mean  of  blood, 
He  is  not  vile  or  foul.     And  I  renounce 
More  willingly  the  names  of  Count  and  Marquis 
Than  a  son's  sentiments  of  love  and  duty. 
Naught  can  efface  the  sacred  character 
Of  Nature's  ties  within  an  honest  breast. 
I  left  my  parents,  I  disclaimed  my  name ; 
My  soul  for  honour  sighed,  for  glory  panted 
E'en  in  that  cottage  where  my  fate  had  cast  me. 
Your  courtly  maxims  warred  against  my  hopes ; 
The  road  of  Honour  and  the  course  of  Glory 
Were  open  but  to  Lords.    I  had  no  means 
To  rise  but  to  conceal  my  birth. ^ 

On  the  whole,  the  translation  is  a  very  credit- 
able performance  for  a  person  of  the  literary 
attainments  of  Hannah  Brand.  It  was  proba- 
bly never  played. 

Miss  Brand's  translation  of  Don  Sanche^  in 
spite  of  its  faults,  has  one  distinction  —  that 
of  being  the  last  attempt  made  in  all  serious- 
ness to  manufacture  a  piece  of  English  litera- 

1  Carlos.  Je  suis  fils  d'un  pgcheur,  mais  non  pas  d'un  inf S,me ; 
La  bassesse  du  sang  ne  va  pas  jusqu'a  I'ame, 
Et  je  renonce  aux  noms  de  comte  et  de  marquis 
Avec  bien  plus  d'honneur  qu'aux  sentiments  de  fils ; 
Rien  n'en  peut  effacer  le  sacr6  caract^re. 

The  lines  which  follow  in  the  English  are  original  with 
Miss  Brand. 


THE  LAST  OF  THE   MOVEMENT  269 

ture  out  of  a  translated  French  tragedy.  The 
next  three  (the  last  made)  bear  distinctly  the 
mark  of  dilettantism,  of  being  the  pastime  of 
idle  people. 

The  first,  published  in  1800,  was  written  by 
Lady  Sophia  Burrel,  a  very  wealthy  woman 
who  lived  the  prosperous  life  of  country  aris- 
tocracy in  England.  Her  poetic  output  consists 
of  two  octavo  volumes  of  verse,  and  the  freely 
translated  Maximian  from  the  tragedy  of  the 
same  name  by  T.  Corneille.  This  is  scarcely 
more  than  an  adaptation,  with  many  additions 
of  dances,  festivities,  spectacles,  and  the  like. 
It  is  written  in  smoothly  flowing  and  absolutely 
commonplace  blank  verse.  That  the  author 
approached  her  work  in  no  serious  mood  may 
be  gathered  with  certainty  from  the  Dedica- 
tion, where  she  speaks  of  having  undertaken 
the  translation  to  amuse  herself  during  a  tire- 
some period  of  convalescence.  The  Monthly  Re- 
view (Vol.  XXXIII.  new  series,  page  221)  gives 
a  moderately  lengthy  report  of  this  work,  in- 
duced to  this  action,  apparently,  by  the  social 
standing  of  the  author.  Lady  Burrel's  ele- 
gant trifling  receives  the  usual  faint  praise 
accorded    to    recognized     amateurs,    but     the 


270     CORNEILLE  AND  RACINE  IN  ENGLAND 

Review  says  that  it  would  take  more  than  the 
pen  of  a  lady  of  leisure  to  make  French  trag- 
edy acceptable  in  England  at  that  time. 

The  last  translation  of  the  Cid  appeared  in 
1802,  written  by  "A  Gentleman  formerly  a 
Captain  in  the  Army."  This  nom  de  plume  is 
as  complete  a  disguise  for  the  author  now 
as  then,  and  no  one  seems  ever  to  have  taken 
any  trouble  to  pierce  it.  This  translation, 
like  that  of  Lady  Burrel,  might  well  have 
been  undertaken  as  a  pastime  of  a  conva- 
lescent. It  certainly  shows  not  the  slightest 
trace  of  any  real  effort  to  make  a  good  repro- 
duction of  the  original.  The  versification  is 
almost  uniformly  bad,  and  at  times  the  diction 
is  absurd. 

The   following   selection   is   the   attempt   at 

translation  of  Don  Rodrigue's  soliloquy  in  the 

first  act : 

When  on  the  point  of  gaining  all  I  wish 
How  dismal  'tis  to  think  of  such  a  talk. 
He  who  begat  me  is  the  injur'd  man 
And  the  offender  is  Chimena's  sire. 
This  horrid  struggle  causes  shocking  pain, 
It  quite  deranges  all  my  mental  powers  !  ^ 

1  There  are  no  lines  in  the  original  which  can  he  selected 
as  the  basis  of  this  effusion.     "  The  Gentleman  "  apparently 


THE  LAST  OF  THE  MOVEMENT  271 

If  one  take  the  trouble  to  compare  this  with 
the  artfully  wrought,  melodious,  and  ardent 
complaint  in  the  original,  it  almost  passes  the 
bounds  of  credibility  that  such  stuff  could  have 
been  put  out  as  an  attempt  at  translation,  so 
late  as  1802. 

The  last  translation  made  (always  excepting 
Athalie)  has  a  character  curiously  appropriate 
to  its  position  as  finale  of  this  movement.  Sir 
Brooke  Boothby  published  in  1803  an  English 
version  of  Britannicus,  of  which  the  preface  is 
by  far  the  most  interesting  part.  This  consists 
of  twenty-five  octavo  pages  of  discussion  about 
the  differences  between  the  English  and  French 
stage,  about  the  introduction,  new  at  that  time, 
of  German  plays  into  England,  and  about  the 
general  state  of  the  English  theatre.  Sir  Brooke 
does  all  this  in  a  very  interesting  and  discrimi- 
nating manner.  His  judgments  as  to  the 
then  prevalent  tendencies  of  the  stage  are  very 
shrewd,  and  have  been  proved  correct  by  time. 
His  remarks  on  the  use  of  poetry  as  a  dra- 
matic medium  are  particularly  good,  and  while 
they  may  sound  platitudinous  now,  their  real 

had  no  wish  to  do  more  than  attempt  to  reproduce  the 
general  idea  of  the  celebrated  monologue. 


272     CORNEILLE  AND  RACINE  IN  ENGLAND 

discrimination  is  remarkable  when  it  is  remem- 
bered that  they  were  written  a  hundred  years 
ago,  while  public  taste  was  still  strongly  under 
the  influence  of  the  eighteenth  century. 

"  Melodious  versification  is  rather  an  impedi- 
ment to  success.  The  art  of  reciting  verses 
which  appears  formerly  to  have  been  felt  as 
one  of  the  chief  excellences  in  acting,  is  in  a 
great  measure  lost.  Neither  the  actor  nor  the 
audience  have  any  ear  for  the  modulations  of 
verse,  and  the  measure  is  broken  off  or  pre- 
served just  as  it  happens  .  .  .  measured  recita- 
tions and  tragic  deportment  fell  into  neglect 
and  even  disrepute,  and  there  is  scarcely  an 
actor  on  the  stage  that  can  repeat  a  dozen 
lines,  not  only  with  proper  rhythm  and  cadence 
but  without  breaking  the  measure." 

The  importance  of  this  change  of  public  feel- 
ing with  regard  to  recitation  has  already  been 
pointed  out,  but  it  is  interesting  to  note  that 
at  least  one  contemporary  saw  the  meaning  of 
it  as  clearly  as  it  now  appears  to  us.  The 
translator  speaks  later  with  great  disgust  of  the 
extravagant  adaptations  of  German  Sturm  und 
Drang  tragedies,  which  were  then  very  popular. 
"  That  so  chaste  and  simple  a  tragedy  as  the 


THE  LAST  OF  THE  MOVEMENT  273 

Britannicus  of  Racine  should  succeed  on  the 
English  stage  is  less  to  be  expected  than  ever  ; 
to  succeed  at  present,  a  piece  must  comprise  in 
one  incoherent  jumble  every  manner  at  once, 
except  that  which  is  simple  and  natural  — 
tragedy,  farce,  opera,  pantomime,  without  sense, 
or  feeling,  or  conduct,  or  interest,  resembling  a 
sick  man's  dreams  rather  than  the  representa- 
tion of  any  rational  action."  This  complaining 
paragraph  shows  no  especial  penetration  on  the 
part  of  Sir  Brooke,  as  it  is  safe  to  say  that  not 
a  decade  in  the  history  of  the  theatre  has 
passed  without  the  appearance  of  some  such 
sweeping  condemnation  of  the  contemporary 
state  of  the  stage. 

It  is  evident,  moreover,  upon  an  examination 
of  the  piece  itself,  that  Sir  Brooke,  like  many 
other  severe  critics,  could  not  produce  much 
better  things  than  those  he  condemned.  The 
translation  is  smooth  and  dignified,  but  without 
force.  He  has  produced  a  Britannicus  better 
than  that  of  Ozell,  for  he  has  the  negative 
quality  of  avoiding  the  faults  of  taste  that  dis- 
figure the  latter's  work.  But  a  man  who  ex- 
hibits the  cultivation  and  training  shown  by 
Boothby  in  his  preface  should  have  been  able  to 


274    CORNEILLE  AND  RACINE   IN  ENGLAND 

avoid  the  frequently  obscure  lines  and  the 
occasional  trivialities  of  diction  such  as 

Such  sentiments,  unless  I  much  mistake, 
Will  never  find  the  way  to  Junia's  heart.^ 

As  a  rule  it  is  only  just  to  say  that  there  are 
few  positive  faults  to  be  found  with  this  pro- 
duction. It  is  simply  the  work  of  a  man  with- 
out a  spark  of  inspiration. 

It  is  interesting  on  one  account :  it  almost 
seems  that  Sir  Brooke  knew,  or  felt,  that  he  was 
the  last  of  his  line,  and  as  though  he  were  half 
consciously  giving  in  a  very  lucid  way  the  rea- 
sons for  the  abandonment  of  the  movement 
which  has  been  traced  in  these  pages.  It  is 
the  swan-song  of  the  translators  of  Racine  and 
Corneille,  and  is  strictly  in  keeping  with  the 
character  of  most  of  its  predecessors  in  that  it 
is  the  work  of  an  intelligent  man  but  not  of  a 
poet. 

1  Je  coDnais  mal  Junie,  ou  de  tels  sentiments 
Ne  m^riteront  pas  ses  applaudissements. 


XVIII.     SUMMARY 

This  brief  and  almost  forgotten  chapter  in 
dramatic  history  may  be  adequately  summarized 
as  follows : 

A  prefatory  movement  and  three  important 
periods  may  be  distinguished.  A  few  scatter- 
ing translations  were  the  precursors  of  the  first 
period.  This  began  definitely  with  the  restora- 
tion of  Charles  II.  to  the  throne,  and  continued 
throughout  his  reign.  It  was  a  serious,  earnest 
and  dignified  effort  to  transplant  the  master- 
pieces of  French  dramatic  literature  to  Eng- 
land, and  to  make  them  of  native  growth. 

Then  follows  an  interregnum,  from  the  death 
of  Charles  until  the  accession  of  Queen  Anne. 
During  her  reign,  and  the  ten  years  following 
her  death,  numbers  of  translations  appeared. 
This  is  the  most  prolific  epoch  of  the  whole 
movement.  Encouraged  by  the  success  of  Am- 
brose Philips's  Distrest  Mother,  and  by  the 
famous  discussion  over  Addison's  Oato,  many  of 
the  lesser  lights  of  the  literary  world,  more 
276 


276    CORNEILLE  AND  RACINE  IN  ENGLAND 

especially  of  the  theatrical  world,  devoted  them- 
selves to  bringing  Racine  and  Corneille  to  the 
English  stage. 

After  this  period  of  activity,  interest  in  these 
two  authors  gradually  died  down;  and  from 
1730  to  1750  there  is  another  blank,  when  no 
more  new  translations  are  attempted.  Again 
another  success  (William  Whitehead's  Roman 
Father)  started  anew  the  fashion  for  translated 
tragedy,  and  again  this  gradually  disappeared. 
This  closes  the  significant  part  of  the  whole 
movement.  From  the  end  of  the  eighteenth 
century  the  translations  were  purely  scholarly 
attempts,  and  as  such  have  no  more  real  mean- 
ing for  the  dramatic  world  than  have  similar 
efforts  of  our  own  day. 

The  result  of  this  investigation  clearly  illus- 
trates the  futility  of  attempts  to  establish,  per- 
manently, artificial  standards  of  beauty.  Any 
taste  which  is  not  a  natural  growth  from  within 
cannot  become  truly  national.  Most  sincere 
effort  was  put  forth  during  two  centuries,  by 
various  authors  and  with  various  methods,  to 
give  to  the  literary  world  of  one  nation  the 
beauties  of  the  literary  world  of  the  other. 
This   effort    practically   failed   in  spite  of  the 


SUMMARY 


277 


many  advantages  which  it  possessed  over  other 
similar  movements.  It  is  a  striking  exemplifi- 
cation of  the  truth  that  national  taste  is  a 
natural  organic  growth  and  that  no  efforts, 
however  competent  and  strenuous,  can  radically 
change  its  inherent  nature. 


CHRONOLOGY 

PIERRE   CORNEILLE 

The  Cid.  A  Tragicomedy  out  of  French  made  English, 
and  acted  before  their  Majesties  at  Court  and  on  the 
Cockpit  Stage  in  Drury  Lane.     London.     1637. 

Polyeuctes,  or  The  Martyr.  A  Tragedy,  by  Sir  William 
Lower.     London.     1655. 

Horatius.  A  Roman  Tragedy,  by  Sir  William  Lower, 
Knight.     London.     1656. 

Pompey.  A  Tragedy  (Translated  from  the  French  of 
Pierre  Corneille  with  the  Additions  of  Songs)  by 
Katharine  Philips.    London.     1663. 

Pompeius,  Called  the  Great.  Translated  out  of  French 
by  Certain  Persons  of  Honour.     London.     1664. 

Heraclius,  Emperour  of  the  East.  Englished  by  L.  Car- 
lell.     London.     1664. 

Poems.  By  the  most  deservedly  Admired  Mrs.  K.  Phil- 
ips, The  Matchless  Orinda.  To  which  is  added 
Monsieur  Corneille's  Pompey  and  Horace.  Trag- 
edies. London.  1667. 
The  same  with  John  Denham's  completion  of  the 
translation  of  the  Horace.  London.  1669.  An- 
other edition  of  same  in  1678. 
The  same  but  with  Cotton's  fifth  act  of  the  Horace 
substituted  for  Denham's.    London.     1710. 

Horace.     A  French   Tragedy.      Englished    by   Charles 
Cotton.    London.     1671. 
279 


280    CORNEILLE  AND  RACINE  IN  ENGLAND 

Nicomede.  A  Tragicomedy.  Translated  out  of  French 
by  J.  Dancer.  London.  1671.  This  is  published 
by  Francis  Kirkman  who  printed  with  it  "  an  exact 
catalogue  of  all  English  Stage  plays  presented  till 
this  present  year,  1671." 

The  Mistaken  Beauty,  or  The  Lyar.  A  Comedy.  Acted 
...  at  the  Royal  Theatre.     London.     1685. 

The  Cid.  A  Tragedy.  Translated  from  the  French  of 
Corneille.  1691.  Unpublished.  In  the  British 
Museum  Manuscript  Room.     Mss.  Addit.  8888. 

The  Lying  Lover,  or  The  Ladies  Friendship.  London. 
1704.     (There  was  a  6th  ed.  in  1760.) 

Cinna's  Conspiracy.     A  Tragedy.     London.     1713. 

The  Cid.  Translated  from  the  French  of  Pierre  Cor- 
neille by  J.  Ozell.     London.     1714. 

The  Heroick  Daughter,  or  Ximena,  by  CoUey  Cibber. 
London.     1718. 

Caesar  in  iEgypt.  A  Tragedy  as  it  is  acted  at  the  Thea- 
tre Royal.  .  .  .  Written  by  Mr.  Cibber.  London. 
1725. 

The  Roman  Father.  A  Tragedy  by  William  White- 
head.   London.    1750. 

The  Lyar.  A  Comedy  by  Samuel  Foote.  London. 
1764. 

Rodogune.  A  Tragedy.  Translated  from  the  French 
by  Stanhope  Aspinwall.    London.     1765. 

Melite.  Translated  from  the  French  of  M.  Corneille. 
London.     1776. 

Brand's  Plays  and  Poems.  (Containing  the  ConjBlict  of 
Love,  Honour,  and  Pride.)     1798. 

The  Cid.  A  Tragedy  taken  from  the  French  of  Cor- 
neille by  a  Gentleman,  formerly  a  Captain  in  the 
Army.    London.    1802. 


CHRONOLOGY  281 

THOMAS  CORNEILLE 

The  Extravagant   Sheepherd.     A    Pastorall    Comedie. 

Written  in  French  by  T.  Corneille.    Englished  by 

T.  R.    London.    1654. 
The  Amorous  Orontus,  or  The  Love  in  Fashion.    A  Com- 
edy.   London.     1665. 
The  Astrologer.    London.     1668.     (Title-page  missing.) 
An  Evening's  Love,  or  The  Mock  Astrologer.     London. 

1671.     (By  John  Dryden.) 
The  Rival  Father,  or  The  Death  of  Achilles.     A  Tragedy 

as  it  is  acted.  .  .  .    London.    1730. 
Constantine.    A  tragedy  by  Dr.  Philip  Francis.    London. 

1754. 
The    Brothers.      A  Tragedy.    Written  by  Dr.  Edward 

Young,  as  performed  at  the  Theatre  Royal  in  Drury 

Lane.     London.     1776. 
The   Rival  Sisters.     A   Tragedy  by  A.  Murphy  Esq. 

adapted  for  theatrical  representation,  as  performed 

at  the  Theatre  Royal,  Drury  Lane.     London.     1793. 
The  Labyrinth,  or  Fatal  Embarrassment.     A   Tragedy 

...  for  the  benefit  of  Agnes  Stratford,  sister  of  the 

late  Rev.  Thomas  Stratford.     London.     1795. 
Maximian.     A  Tragedy  taken  from  Corneille  ...  by 

Lady  Sophia  Burrel.    London.    1800. 

RACINE 

Andromache.    A  Tragedy  as  it  is  acted  at  the  Duke*s 

Theatre.    London.     1675. 
Titus  and  Berenice.     A  Tragedy  as  it  is  acted.  ...    By 

Thomas  Otway.     London.     1677. 
Achilles  or  Iphigenia  in    Aulis.     A  Tragedy  as  it  is 

acted.  .  .  .    Written  by  Mr.  Boyer.    London.    1700. 


282     CORNEILLE  AND  RACINE  IN  ENGLAND 

Phaedra  and  Hippolitus.    A  Tragedy  as  it  is  acted.  .  .  . 

By  Mr.  Edmund  Smith.     London.     1706. 
The  Distrest  Mother.     A  Tragedy  by  Ambrose  Philips. 

London.     1712.     (Very  many  later  editions.) 
The  Victim,   or   Achilles  and  Iphigenia  in  Aulis.     A 

Tragedy.     Written  by  Mr.  Boyer.     London.     1714. 
The  Victim.    A  Tragedy.     Written  by  Charles  Johnson. 

London.     1714. 
Two   Tragedies,  viz.,  Britannicns   and  Alexander,   now 

first  translated  from  the  French  of  M.  Racine  by  Mr. 

Ozell.    London.     1714. 
Esther,   or  Faith  Triumphant.    A  Sacred  Tragedy  by 

Mr.  Brereton.     London.     1715. 
The  Litigants.     A  Comedy  translated  from  the  French 

of  M.  Racine  by  Mr.  Ozell.     London.     1715. 
The  Sultaness.     A  Tragedy.     Written  by  Charles  John- 
son.    London.     1717.      (There  were  two  editions 

issued  in  the  same  year,  1717.) 
The   Fatal  Legacy.      A  Tragedy    as   it  is   acted.  .  .  . 

London.     1723. 
Athaliah.     A  Tragedy.     Translated  from  the  French  of 

Monsieur  Racine  by  Mr.  William  Duncombe.    Lon- 
don.    1722. 
Phedra.     A  Tragedy.     Translated  from  the  French  of 

M.  de  Racine.    London.     1776. 
Britannicus.    A  Tragedy.    Translated  from  the  French  of 

Racine  by  Sir  Brooke  Boothby  Bart.    London.    1803. 
The  Sacred  Dramas  of  Esther  and  Athalie.     Translated 

from  the  French  of  Racine.     Edinburgh.     1803. 
Athaliah.    A  Sacred  Drama.    Translated  from  the  French 

of  Racine.     Edinburgh.     1815. 
Athaliah.     A  Tragedy.     Translated  from  the  French  by 

J.  C.  Knight.    London.     1822. 


CHRONOLOGY  283 

Athaliah.      A    Sacred    Drama.      Translated    from    the 

Athalie  of  Racine  by  Charles  Randolph.     London. 

1829. 
Athaliah.     A  Sacred   Drama.     Translated  from  Racine 

and  Original   Poems  by  the  late    Thomas  Fry  of 

Tunbridge  Wells.     London.     1841. 
The  Death  of  Athaliah.     A  Scriptural  Drama.     Founded 

on  the  Athalie  of  Racine  by  the  Rev.  W.  TroUope. 

London.     184:4. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Baker,  David  Erskine.  Biographica  Dramatica.  Orig- 
inally compiled  to  the  year  1764.     London,  1812. 

Ballard,  G.  Memoirs  of  Several  Ladies  of  Great  Britain. 
London,  1774. 

Biographica  Britannica.  Anonymous.  5  vols.  London, 
1778-1793. 

Chalmers,  The  English  Poets. 

Chetwood,  W.  R.  General  History  of  the  Stage.  Lon- 
don, 1749. 

Cibber,  CoUey.     Apology  for  the  Life  of  Colley  Gibber. 
London,  1740. 
A  brief  supplement  to  Colley  Cibber,  Esq.,  by  Tony 
Aston,  1747. 

Collection  of  material  towards  a  history  of  the  English 
stage  made  by  Richard  John  Smith.  Unpublished. 
In  Newspaper  Room  of  British  Museum.  25  vols.  4°. 

Collier,  Jeremy.  A  Short  View  of  the  Immorality  and 
Profaneness  of  the  English  Stage.     London,  1699. 

Collier,  John  Payne.  History  of  English  Dramatic 
Poetry.    3  vols.     London,  1831. 

Comparison  between  the  Two  Stages.  (In  dialogue. 
Familiar  contemporary  criticism.)     London,  1702. 

Corneille.  (Euvres.  Marty-Leveaux  edition.  Paris,  1862- 
1868.     12  vols.     New  edition,  1887. 

Corneille.  Six  Tragedies  de  Pierre  Corneille  retouchdes 
pour  le  Theatre.     Paris,  1802. 


286     CORNEILLE  AND  RACINE  IN  ENGLAND 

Critical    Review;    or  Annals  of    Literature.      London, 

1756-1790.    Later  series,  up  to  1817. 
Crowne,  John.    Dramatic  Works.    4  vols.    London,  1873. 
Dibdin,  Charles.     History  of  the  English  Stage.    5  vols. 

London,  1800. 
Dodsley,  Robert.    Old  Plays.     15  vols.    London,  1874- 

1876. 
Dodsley.     Theatrical  Records.    London,  1756. 
Doran,  John.     Annals  of    the  English  Stage.     2  vols. 

London,  1864. 
Downes,  John.     Roscius  Anglicanus.     London,  1708. 
Dramatic  Timepiece;    or.  Perpetual  Monitor.     London, 

1767. 
Dryden,  John.     Scott  and  Saintsbury.     18  vols.    Edin- 
burgh, 1882. 
Egerton,  John.      Theatrical    Remembrancer.      London, 

1788. 
Elliot,  Hugh.      The    Life  of    the  Earl  of    Godolphin. 

London,  1888. 
Evelyn,    John.       Diary    and    Correspondence.      4    vols. 

London,  1879. 
Fincke,  G.     Le  Menteur  de  Corneille  et  La  Verdad  So- 

spechosa  de  Don  Juan  de  Alarcon. 
Fitzgerald,  Percy.     New  History  of  the  English   Stage. 

London,  1882. 
Fleay,  F.  G.     A  Chronicle  History  of  the  London  Stage 

(1559-1642).     London,  1890. 
Gamett,  Richard.     The  Age  of  Dryden.     London,  1897. 
Genest,  John.      Some  Account  of    the  English   Stage. 

•10  vols.     London,  1832. 
Gosse,  E.  W.     Seventeenth  Century  Studies.     London, 

1883. 
From  Shakespeare  to  Pope.    Cambridge,  1885. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  287 

History  of  Eighteenth  Century  Literature.   London, 

1889. 
Halliwell-Phillipps,  James.     A  Dictionary  of  Old  English 

Plays.     London,  1860. 
Hazlitt,  W.    C.      Handbook   to  the    Popular,   Poetical, 

Dramatic  Literature  of  England.     London,  1867. 

Collections  and  Notes.     London,  1867  and  1882. 

The  English  Drama  and  Stage  under  the  Tudor  and 

Stuart  princes.    Printed  for  the  Roxburghe  Library, 

1869. 
Hitchcock,  Robert.     Historical  View  of  the  Irish  Stage. 

2  vols.     Dublin,  1794. 
Hobohm,  M.     Das  Verhaltnis  von  Susannah  Centlivre's 

Love  at  a  Venture  zu  Thomas  Corneille's  Le  Galant 

Double.     Halle,  1900. 
Jacob,  Giles.     Poetical  Register.    London,  1723. 
Jusserand,  J.  J.      Shakespeare  en  France  sous  I'ancien 

regime.     Paris,  1898. 
Langbaine,  Gerard.     Momus  Triumphans.    London,  1688. 
Lives  and  Characters  of  English  Dramatic  Poets. 

London,  1699. 

Account  of  English  Dramatic  Poets.    Oxford,  1691. 

Lanson,  Gustave.      Histoire  de  la  Littdrature  fran9aise. 

Hachette  et  Cie.     Paris,  1903. 
Le    Petit,    J.      Bibliographie    des    principales    editions 

origin  ales  d'ecrivains  fran^ais  du  XVe  au  XVIIIe 

siecle.     Paris,  1888. 
Lowe,  R.  W.    English  Catalogue  of  Books.   3  vols.    Lon- 
don, 1873. 
Bibliographical    Account     of     English    Theatrical 

Literature.     London,  1888. 
Mears,  W.     True  and  Exact  Catalogue  of  all  Plays  ever 

printed  in  English.     London,  1726. 


288     CORNEILLE  AND  RACINE  IN  ENGLAND 

Molloy,  J.  F.  Romance  of  the  Irish  stage.  2  vols.  Lon- 
don, 1897. 

Mulert,  Alfred.  Pierre  Corneille  auf  der  Englischen 
Buhne  und  in  der  Englischen  Uebersetzungs-Liter- 
atur  des  Siebzehnten  Jahrhunderts.  MUnchener 
Beitrage  zur  Romanischen  und  Englischen  Philo- 
logie.    XVIII.     1900. 

Nichols,  John.  Literary  Anecdotes  of  the  18th  century. 
9  vols.    London,  1812. 

Pepys,  S.  Diary  and  Correspondence.  4  vols.  London, 
1890. 

Philips,  Ambrose.  A  Modest  Survey  of  that  celebrated 
tragedy  the  Distrest  Mother.     London,  1712. 

Philips,  Katharine.  Letters  from  Orinda  to  Poliarchus. 
London,  1705. 

Picot,  Emile.    Bibliographie  Corndlienne.    Paris,  1876. 

Playhouse  Pocket  Companion.    London,  1779. 

Prompter,  The.  London,  1734-1736.  (Theatrical  Maga- 
zine.) 

Racine.  (Euvres.  Mesnard  edition.  Paris,  1865-1873. 
8  vols.,  octavo.    2  vols.,  quarto. 

Schmidt,  E.  Corneille  als  Lustspieldichter.  Archiv 
f.  d.  Studium  der  neuern  Sprachen.    Vol.  50. 

Sedley,  Sir  Charles.     Works.     London,  1722. 

Spies,  Joseph.  Otway's  Titus  and  Berenice  and  Racine*s 
Berenice,  a  parallel.  Program  des  Kbniglichen  Gym- 
nasiums zu  Wetzlar. 

Steele,  Sir  Richard,  Epistolatory  Correspondence  of.  Lon- 
don, 1787. 

Stoye,  Max.  Das  Verhaltnis  von  Gibber's  Tragbdie  Ccesar 
in  Egypt  zu  Fletcher's,  The  False  One.     Halle,  1897. 

Study  of  the  Epilogue  and  Prologue  on  the  English  Stage. 
London,  1884. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  289 

Theatrical  Review.    London,  1763. 

Thespian  Dictionary.     London,  1805. 

Waller,   Edmund.    Works.      Cooke's  edition.     London, 

1796. 
Poetical  Works  of  Edmund  Waller  and  Sir  John 

Denham.     Edinburgh,  1856. 
Ward,  A.  W.     History  of  English  Dramatic  Literature  to 

death  of  Queen  Anne.     3  vols.     London,  1899. 
Whincop,  Thomas.     Compleat  list  of  all  the  plays  ever 

yet  printed  in  English.     London,  1747. 
Whitehead.     The  story  on  which  the  new  tragedy  call'd 

The  Roman  Father  is  founded.     London,  1750. 
Remarks  on  the    new  tragedy  call'd    The  Roman 

Father.     London,  1750. 
A  comparison  between  the  Horace  of  Corneille  and 

The  Roman  Father  of  Mr.  Whitehead.     London,  1750. 
The  Poems  of  Anne,  Countess  of  Winchilsea.     Edited 
by  Myra  Reynolds.     University  of  Chicago  Press,  1903. 

The  usual  standard  sources  for  biographical  informa- 
tion have  been  consulted  —  the  Dictionary  of  National 
Biography,  etc.  Also  the  best-known  periodicals  of  the 
eighteenth  century —  The  Spectator,  Gentleman's  Magazine, 
Monthly  Review,  London  Review,  The  Scots,  etc.,  in  Eng- 
lish: the  Journal  des  S^avans  (Paris,  1665  ff.),  Nouvelles 
de  la  Republique  des  Lettres  (Amsterdam,  1684-1718), 
Bibliotheque  universelle  et  historique  (Amsterdam,  1686  ff.), 
CEuvres  des  Savans,  Basnage  (Rotterdam,  1695  ff.),  etc., 
in  French. 


INDEX 


Achilles;  translation  of  Iphi- 
g^nie,  by  Boyer,  107  ff . 

Addison's  Cato,  117. 

Amorous  Orontus,  or  the  Amo- 
rous Gallant  (Bulteel),  70. 

Andromache  (Crowne),  88. 
Change  in  ending,  91. 

Anti-Theatre,  The;  published 
by  Dennis,  171. 

Aspinwall,  Stanhope;  transla- 
tor of  Eodogune,  243. 

Boothby,  Sir  Brooke;  transla- 
tor of  Britannicus,  271. 
Remarks  on   Declamation, 
272. 

Boyer,  Abel ;  translator  of  Iphi- 
g€nie,  107  ff . 
Dispute  with  Dennis,  109; 
with  Johnson,  198. 

Brand,  Hannah;  translator  of 
Don  Sanche  d'Arragon, 
264. 

Brereton,  Thomas;  translator 
of  Esther,  20^S. 

Brothers,  The;  translation  of 
Pers^e  et  Demetrius,  by 
Young,  235  ff. 

Bulteel,  John;  translator  of 
U Amour  a  la  Mode,  70. 

Burrel,  Lady  Sophia;  transla- 
tor of  Mhximian,  269. 

Caesar  in  Egypt ;  adaptation  of 
Fompee,  by  Gibber,  221. 


Carlell,  Lodowick ;  translator 

of  Heraclius,  64. 
Cato,  Addison,  117. 
Centlivre,  Susanna ;  Love  at  a 

Venture  (preface),  10. 
Charles  II.,  Influence  of,  28. 
Cibber,  Colley;    translator   of 

Le   Cid,  167;  of  Cinna, 

180 ;  of  Pomp^e,  221. 
Cinna's    Conspiracy ;    transla- 
tion   of    Cinna;    anon., 

179  ff. 
Civil  Wars  close  playhouses, 

14. 
Conflict,  The;    translation  of 

Don  Sanche  d' Arragon, 

by  Brand,  265. 
Constantine ;     translation     of 

Maximian,  by   Francis, 

241. 
Corneille,  Pierre.    Works  — 
Cinna;  anon.,  179. 
Don    Sanche     d'Arragon ; 

Brand,  265. 
Heraclius ;  Carlell,  64. 
Horace;    Lower,  23;    Mrs. 

Philips,  45;  Cotton,  80; 

Whitehead,  229. 
LeCid;  Rutter,  3;  Popple, 

104;  Ozell,  195;   Cibber, 

167;  Gentleman  (anon.), 

270. 
Le    Menteur;    anon.,    77  ; 

Steele,  119 ;  Foote,  124. 
M^lite;  anon.,  246. 


291 


292 


INDEX 


Nicomede ;  Dancer,  84. 
Pomp^e;  Mrs.  Philips,  33; 

"  Persons   of    Honour," 

51 ;  Gibber,  221. 
Rodogune ;  Aspinwall,  243. 
Corneille,  Thomas.    Works  — 
Ariane;  Murphy,  259 ;  Strat- 
ford, 261. 
Lw  Mort  d'Achille ;  Hatch- 

ett,  224. 
U Amour  a  la  Mode;    Bul- 

teel,  70. 
Le  Berg er  Extravagant ;  T. 

R.,  19. 
Le  Feint  Astrologue ;  anon., 

71 ;  Dryden,  74. 
Le    Galant  DouhU ;    Mrs. 

Centlivre  (preface),  10. 
Maximian ;    Francis,    241 ; 

Lady  Burrel,  269. 
Pers^e       et       Demetrius ; 

Young,  235. 
Cotterell,    Sir   Charles;     Cor- 
respondence   with    Mrs. 

Philips,  35,  51,  52,  59,  60. 
Cotton,  Charles ;  translator  of 

Horace,  80. 
Crowne,    John;   translator  of 

Andromaque,  88. 

Dancer,  John;  translator  of 
Nicomede,  Ml. 

Declamation,    Decline   in   the 
Art  of,  256. 
Sir   Brooke   Boothby's   re- 
marks on,  272. 

Denham,  Sir  John,  14,  46. 

Dennis,  John ;  Anti-Theatre, 
171 ;  dispute  with  Boyer, 
109. 

Distrest  Mother,  The ;  transla- 
tion of  Andromaque,  by 
Philips,  140. 


Remarks  of  Spectator  on, 

140,  152-4. 
Success  of,  144  ff . ;  attacks 

on,   154;    epilogue,  157; 

change  in  ending,  163. 
Dryden,    John;    translator    of 

Le  Feint  Astrologue,  71, 

74  fe. 

Dublin  in  Early  Restoration, 
32,  33  ;  interest  in 
French,  84. 

Duncombe,  William;  transla- 
tor of  Athalie,  249. 

Earl  of  Dorset  and  Le  Cid,  3, 
5,6. 

Evening's  Love,  An;  transla- 
tion of  Le  Feint  Astro- 
logue by  Dryden,  74. 
Scott's  judgment  on  it,  76. 

Extravagant  Sheepherd,  The; 
translation  of  Le  Berger 
Extravagant,  19  ff . 

Fatal  Legacy,  The ;  translation 
of  La  Thebaide  by  Miss 
Robe,  216. 
Change  in  ending,  219. 

Feigned  Astrologer ;  transla- 
tion of  Le  Feint  Astro- 
logue, anon.,  72. 

Foote,  Samuel;  translator  of 
Le  Menteur,   124. 

Francis,  Philip;  translator  of 
Maximian,  241. 

French  plays  in  London,  2. 

Gallant,  The  Amorous;  trans- 
lation of  L' Amour  a  la 
Mode,  70. 

Hatchett;  translator  of  La 
Mort  d'Achille,  224. 


INDEX 


Henrietta  Maria,  influence  of, 
2,3. 

Heroick  Daughter,  The ;  trans- 
lation of  Le  Cid  by  Gib- 
ber, 167. 
Changes  in  plot,  174-6. 
Dispute  over,  168. 

Horace;  translation  of  Horace 
by  Mrs.  Philips,  45. 

Horatius;   translation  of  Hor- 
ace by  Lower,  23. 

Johnson,    Charles ;    translator 
of    Iphig^nie,    198;    of 
Bajazet,  212. 
Quarrel  with  Boyer,  199. 

Knight,  J.  C. ;    translator   of 
Athalie,  254. 

Labyrinth,  The;  translation  of 

Ariane     by     Stratford, 

261. 
Liar,  The;    translation  of  Le 

Menteur  by  Foote,  124. 
Litigants,  The;  translation  of 

Les  Plaideurs  by  Ozell, 

203. 
Love,     Honour,     and     Pride; 

translation       of       Don 

Sanche     d^Arragon    by 

Miss  Brand,  265. 
Love  at  a  Venture,  Mrs.  Cent- 

livre  (preface),  10. 
Lower,  Sir  William;  translator 

of  Horace  and  Polyeuc- 

tes,  22. 
Lying  Lover,  The ;  translation 

of  Le  Menteur  by  Steele, 

119. 
Lyrical     additions     to     Mrs. 

Philips's       translations, 

49;    to  Cotton's,  83. 


Melite,  anon.,  246. 

Mistaken  Beauty,  The;  trans- 
lation of  Le  Menteur, 
anon.,  77. 

Murphy,  Arthur ;  translator  of 
Ariane,  259. 

Oldfield,  Nance,  123,  157, 167. 

Opera,  Italian,  opposition  to, 
130. 

Orinda,  The  Matchless,  31. 

Otway,  Thomas ;  translator  of 
B^r^nice,  92. 

Ozell,  John;  translator  of 
Alexandre,  188;  of  Bri- 
tannicus,  189  fF. ;  of  Le 
Cid,  195;  of  Les  Plai- 
deurs, 203. 
His  translations  not  acted, 

187. 
His  translations  unusually 
faithful,  188  ff. 

Pepys's  judgment  of  The  Cid, 
13;  of  Mrs.  Philips's 
Horace,  48 ;  of  the  Pom- 
pey  of  "The  Persons  of 
Honour,"  58;  of  Car- 
lell's  Heraclius,  65. 
*!  Persons  of  Honour  " ;  trans- 
lators of  Pompie,  51. 

(Waller,  the  Earl  of  Dorset, 
Sir  Charles  Sedley,  Sid- 
ney Godolphin,  Sir  Ed- 
ward Filmore.) 

Comparison  with  Mrs. 
Philips's  Pompey,  61. 

Epilogues,  57. 
Phaedra  and  Hippolitus ;  trans- 
lation    of     Phedre    by 
Smith,  129. 

Epilogue,  136. 

Failure,  135. 


294 


INDEX 


Greek   and   Latin  sources, 

131. 
Success  though  tardy,  138-9. 
Phedra ;  translation  of  Fhedre, 

anon,,  246. 
Philips,   Ambrose ;    translator 

of  Andromaque,  140. 
Philips,  Mrs.  Katharine ;  trans- 
lator   of    Pomp^e    and 
Horace,  31  if. 
Pompey;  translation  of  Pom- 
pee  by  Mrs.  Philips,  31  ff. 
Commendatory  verse  upon, 

38. 
Comparison  with  the  Pom- 
pey of  *'  Persons  of  Hon- 
our," 61  ff. 
Correspondence     with     Sir 
Charles  Cotterell,  35,  51, 
52,60. 
Success  in  Dublin,  36. 
Popple,  William ;  translator  of 

Le  Cid,  104. 
Prynne,  punishment  of,  2,  3. 

Racine,  Jean.    Works  — 

Alexandre;  Ozell,  188. 

Andromaque;  Crowne,  88; 
Philips,  140. 

Athalie ;  anon.,  252  ;  Dun- 
combe,  249 ;  Knight, 
254;    Sheppard,  252. 

Bajazet;  Johnson,  212. 

B€r€nice ;  Otway,  92. 

Britannicus ;  Boothby,  271 ; 
Ozell,  189. 

Esther;  Brereton,  204; 
anon.,  252. 

Iphigenie;  Boyer,  107 ;  John- 
son, 198. 

La  TMbaide;  Miss  Robe, 
216. 

Les  Plaideurs ;  Ozell,  203. 


Phedre;  Smith,  129;  anon., 
246. 

Rival  Father,  The ;  translation 
of  La  Mort  d'Achille  by 
Hatchett,  224. 

Rival  Sisters,  The ;  translation 
of  Ariane  by  Murphy, 
259. 

Robe,  Miss  J.;  translator  of 
La  Thdbaide,  216. 

Rodogune ;  by  Aspinwall,  243. 

Roman  Father,  The;  transla- 
tion of  Horace  by  White- 
head, 229. 

"Russell,  Lord, "261. 

Rutter,  Joseph;   translator  of 
Le  Cid,  3. 
Continuation  on  the  stage, 

13. 
"  Second  part  of  The  Cid," 

note,  4. 
Theft  by  Ozell,  196. 

Scott's  judgment  on  Dryden's 

translation  of  Le  Feint 

Astrologue,  76. 
Sheppard,  John;  translator  of 

Athalie,  252. 
Siddons,  Mrs.,  149. 
Sisters,  The  Rival ;  translation 

of    Ariane   by  Murphy, 

259. 
Smith,  Edmund;  translator  of 

Phedre,  129  ff. 
Spectator,    The;    remarks   on 

The  Distrest  Mother,  140, 

152-4. 
On  Phaedra  and  Hippolitus, 

137. 
Steele,  Richard;  translator  of 

Le  Menteur,  119. 
Stratford,  Thomas;  translator 

of  Ariane,  261. 


INDEX 


295 


Sultaness,  The;  translation  of 
Bajazet  by  Johnson,  212, 
prologue,  213. 

Theatre,  The;  periodical  pub- 
lished by  Steele,  170. 
Thefts     from     French     stage 

(preface) ,  9. 

The    Victim;     translation    of 

Iphigenie  by  Boyer,  107. 

The    Victim ;     translation    of 

Iphigenie    by    Johnson, 

198. 

Three  Hours  after  Marriage, 

212. 
Titus  and  Berenice ;  translation 
of  B^r^nice  by  Otway, 
92  fE. 
Changes  in  plot,  97. 
Dibdin's  comment,  94. 
Difference  in  ending,  99. 
Translation  — 

Importance      in      literary 

world,  54. 
Influenced     by     Henrietta 
Maria,  2,  3;  by  Charles 
II.,  28  ff. 
Influence  of  Puritan  rule,  15. 
Made  to  be  read,  30. 


Mrs.  Philips's  ideal  of,  43. 

New  spirit  in  later  eigh- 
teenth century,  245. 

Popularity  during  the  Resto- 
ration, 28. 

Queen  Anne ;  changes  in  the 
character  of  translations 
in  her  reign,  115. 

Relegated  to  amateurs,  258. 

Spirit       prompting      them 
(preface),  9. 
T.  R. ;  translator  of  Le  Berger 
Extravagant,  19. 

Waller,  Edmund ;  one  of  "  Per- 
sons of  Honour,"  51. 

Whitehead,    William;     trans- 
lator of  Horace,  229. 
Changes  in  plot,  231. 

Winchilsea,  Countess  of;  par- 
tial translator  of  Athalie, 
249  (note). 

Woffington,  Peg,  138,  147, 149. 

Ximena ;  translation  of  Le  Cid 
by  Cibber,  167. 

Young,  Edward ;  translator  of 
Fers^e  et  Bemetriiis,  235. 


COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITY  STUDIES  IN  ROMANCE 
PHILOLOGY  AND  LITERATURE 


Frederic  Mistral,  Poet  and  Leader  in  Provence 


BY  CHARLES  ALFRED   DOWNER,   Ph.D. 

^rofessor  of  the  French  Language  and  Literature  in  tht 
College  of  the  City  o/  New  York 

Cloth  J2mo  %\^^mt 


Corneille  and  the  Spanish  Drama 

BY  J.   B.   SEGALL,    Ph.D. 
Sometime  Fellow  in  Romance  Languages  in  Columbia  University 

Qoth  J2mo  $1,50  mi 


Dante  and  the  Animal  Kingdom 

BY   RICHARD  THAYER   HOLBROOK,   Ph.D. 
Tutor  in  Romance  Languages  and  Literatures  in  Columbia  University 

Cloth  J2mo  $2.00  mt 


The  Indebtedness  of  Chaucer's  "Troilus  and 
Criseyde"  to  Quido  Delle  Colonne's 
"  Historia  Trojana  " 

BY  GEORGE  L.   HAMILTON,  A.M. 

Sometime  Fellow  in  Columbia  University 

Qoth  J2mo  $J^  net 


The  Anglo=Norman  Dialect 

BY  LOUIS   EMIL   MENGER,   Ph.D. 

Late  Professor  in  Bryn  Mawr  College 

Qoth  J2mo  $JJ5  net 


THE  MACMILLAN  COMPANY 

66  FIFTH  AVENUE,  NEW  YORK 


VITA 

The  writer  was  born  in  Lawrence,  Kansas,  February 
17,  1879.  Was  graduated  from  the  State  University  of 
Ohio,  1899,  degree  Ph.B.  Studied  in  the  Sorbonne,  and 
in  the  iiJcole  de  Chartes  under  the  personal  direction  of 
Professor  Paul  Meyer,  1899-1900.  Graduate  student, 
Columbia  University,  1900-1904. 


14  DAY  USE 

RETURN  TO  DESK  FROM  WHICH  BORROWED 

LOAN  DEPT. 

This  book  is  due  on  the  last  date  stamped  below,  or 

on  the  date  to  which  renewed. 

Renewed  books  are  subject  to  immediate  recall. 


WUOKftft    h"'"!! 


KtCKIveO 


toy  IV '68 -8  PM 


N0>/    8 '66 -12  M 


UOAN  PEPT- 


DEC  1  6  1968  0  9 


LOAN  DEPT. 


?.&1974 


LuiSt 


tw 


JAN    6B63 


1968  0  6 


f?g:cc 


NOV    8 1969  1  » 


f^^r^B 


-im-s-s8~- 


tt^f?^ 


^^i^ 


fi;^^'% 


.<>,9^ 


DEC  1  -  1968 


1t^ 


^^m 


0  : 


'^^^^lJLN2  0j;.4,£M20 


i:V 


yJHilif 


